close
Friday March 29, 2024

Order based on JIT’s unauthorised probe, Dar tells Supreme Court

By Tariq Butt
August 23, 2017

ISLAMABAD: Finance Minister Senator Ishaq Dar has stated in his review petition that the direction for filing a reference against him and monitoring of entire process including trial and high praise of the Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is tantamount to Supreme Court assuming and combining into one the roles of complainant, judge, jury, executioner and the final court of appeal.

This is contrary to the most sacred constitutional mandate of separation of the judiciary from the executive, he stressed through his lawyer Dr Tariq Hassan.

Dar argued that this is to the grave prejudice of his rights because accountability court will be influenced by the fact that the reference has been directed to be filed by the apex court; that a judge is monitoring the entire prosecution; and that it is based on the JIT report which has received the fulsome praise of the court.

The finance minister emphasized that the direction that the entire process including the trial shall be monitored by a Supreme Court judge and appreciation of the JIT, negating the reservations about the bias and mala fide of its members, by the highest judicial forum amounted to the court assuming and combining into one the roles of complainant, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) (investigator, its executive board, its chairman and prosecutor), judge, jury, executioner and the final forum of appeal.

He pointed out that the arguments on the JIT report were heard by three judges of the implementation bench only while the final order was passed by five justices including two who never heard the submissions on the JIT findings and or considered his objections on them.

Dar argued that the passing of the final order by a bench including two judges, who did not hear the entire case, vitiates the final order in its entirety.

He said there was no allegation against him in regard to possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The April 20 majority judgment disposed of the only allegation against him saying that nothing significant has come forth against him and (Capt.) Safdar as could justify the direction asked for.

The senator asserted that no direction whatsoever was given to the JIT about him. The JIT self-evidently exceeded its mandate by opinion on whether or not his assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income and the court has regrettably erred in law, an error floating on the surface of the record, in passing a direction for a NAB reference against him on the basis of the JIT report that was beyond its mandate as per the April 20 judgment.

He claimed that the direction to the NAB to file the reference amounts to a review of the April 20 order in the absence of any such prayer/application by him or even any such observation in April 20 order that a further order could be passed against him on the basis of whatever the JIT could come up through a whimsical and unauthorized fishing expedition.

Dar pointed out that the accountability mechanism and procedure established under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, envisages three stages -- inquiry, investigation and reference. He argued that the judgment and final order have the effect of denying him the first two stages in violation of his guaranteed fundamental rights under article 10-A. Even at the third stage, the NAB has been given no choice but to file the reference.

He said that on the basis of 34 years of continuous income and wealth tax returns available with him, the relevant authorities and the NAB for years (1985 to 2007) in connection with previous inquiries, he has conclusively established that he has no assets whatsoever that can’t be explained by his declared and accepted income tax returns.

The finance minister said although he raised no objection to jurisdictional grounds to the entertainment of one allegation, this can’t be regarded as any waiver on his part to the objections on grounds of jurisdiction in regard to any other allegation.