Reference against Sharifs
ISLAMABAD: Official documents bring to light what led the National Accountability (NAB) chairman, its Prosecutor General (PG) and its Additional PG (APG) not to prefer an appeal against the Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict in June 2014 that had quashed a reference against Nawaz Sharif, his mother Mrs Shamim Akhtar and his deceased father Mian Muhammad Sharif.
The documents available with The News contain the opinions of NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman, PG KK Agha and APG M Akbar Tarar in the assets beyond legitimate means case. The NAB chief was selected three and a half years ago after complete consensus between incumbent Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, and leader of opposition Syed Khursheed Shah as required under the Constitution while the PG and APG had been appointed during the previous Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government.
According to the history of the case, a reference No07/2000 was filed against the accused persons on account of acquisition of land measuring 401 kanals for the construction of Raiwind mansions and other ancillary buildings amounting to Rs247.352 million, “disproportionate to their legitimate sources of income” as reflected in their annual tax returns from time to time between 1992 and 2000.
Owing to their exile, the matter had been adjourned by the accountability court sine die. On their return to Pakistan, the case was revived for trial.
However, Mrs Shamim Akhtar filed writ petition No2619/2011 before the LHC on October 18, 2011, praying that the case record might be summoned and examined by the LHC; all the proceedings, investigation and inquiry leading to the filing of this reference and its initiation by the NAB be declared illegal, mala fide, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction and consequently it be quashed; during the pendency of this plea, further proceedings on the basis of this reference may be stayed and the NAB be restrained from further harassment of the accused on this basis.
The LHC had granted stay on the day this petition had been filed. The case was decided by two judges in favour of the petitioners. However, one of the judges had given his dissenting note.
As such the matter was consigned to a referee judge, who, on March 11, 2014, decided the case with finding: “I am of the considered opinion” that both the judges “have rightly quashed instant reference. However, observation made by” Justice “Kh Imtiaz Ahmed whereby it was held that ‘However it is clarified that the NAB authorities are competent to proceed against the petitioners if the investigation is again initiated in accordance with law’, is hereby set aside and I agree with the opinion and observations of” Justice “Muhammad Faruukh Irfan Khan” “wherein it was held by his lordship that ‘As a sequel of the above discussion and reasons detailed above, I am of the considered view that after quashing the impugned reference, the afore-stated clarification/observation would not only amount to give a premium to the prosecution of their own fault but also provide them another opportunity ostensibly to fill up their lacunas and equip them with better tools for combating/victimising the petitioners at the hands of the NAB authorities which obviously is not the intent and purpose of the law.
For these reasons, in my humble view the stated observation/clarification is superfluous and uncalled for. It is observed that this petition is not to be referred to again to the aforesaid learned bench which originally heard the same as the decision would not be that of majority, rather, it would be the opinion of the court (referee judge) which would have decisive effect and would be of binding nature and the judgment would follow such opinion.”
The Additional Deputy PG (ADPG), who had been appearing in the court in this case, had given the opinion that keeping in view the legal issues decided by the LHC, the NAB should not file an appeal.
However, on facts and evidence of the reference, the NAB should file an appeal because on facts it has a strong case, he opined.
APG Tarar had written on the file: “I have reviewed the case. In my opinion the learned high court has decided the matter on legal premises which has to be ultimately prevailed. Thus, I support the first opinion of the ADPG’s opinion that the NAB may not assail the impugned judgment before the Supreme Court.”
The PG wrote on the file: “. . . It would seem that with regard to quashment we have three judges against us so our chances of success on appeal are limited in respect of quashment. With regard to the question of reinvestigation we have one judge in our favour. Prima facie in my view this ought to merit filing an appeal. However, before the chairman makes his decision whether to file an appeal or not he should consider what chances of success NAB would have in the case even if NAB was successful on appeal and were allowed to reinvestigate e.g., the fact that the case is approximately 15-year old, the elder Sharif is now deceased, whether such a reinvestigation would be a good use of NAB time and resources, whether a reinvestigation would be perceived as witch hunting/victimisation which would only bring a bad name to NAB and damage its credibility. . .”
Endorsing the opinion of the prosecution, Chairman Qamar Zaman wrote: “The prosecution is unanimous in its opinion that, for various (fatal) illegalities committed during the course of investigation, the quashment is unexceptionable. As regards the possibility of reinvestigation, I agree with PG that it would be an exercise in futility as this being such an old case, operationally it would be impossible to gather any worthwhile information. I, therefore, endorse the opinion of the prosecution that this is not a fit case for an appeal.”
No reference was made during the Supreme Court hearings on the Panama case to the NAB decision of not challenging the LHC judgment in the assets beyond means case against the Sharifs. However, the similar LHC ruling in the Hudaibiya Papers case including Ishaq Dar’s “affidavit” found frequent mention in the Panama proceedings. Both these cases along with the loan default case had been simultaneously heard at the time.
