Appeal in Hudaibiya case based on JIT report

ISLAMABAD: Like the four references filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in the Islamabad accountability court against deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and others, its appeal submitted to the highest judicial forum in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case is also primarily based on the controversial Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report.

Meanwhile, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, who has consistently shunned an aggressive line pursued by his elder brother after the July 28 judgment that disqualified him, will also figure in the NAB’s investigation in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case if the apex court admitted the instant appeal for hearing. Not only he, but his son Hamza too will be associated with this probe apart from the Sharifs’ wheel-chair bound mother.

All these three Sharifs do not figure in the four references filed by the NAB in the accountability court on which proceedings have been kick-started at a pace that is totally different from dozens of such cases, going on in similar judicial forums against politicians and others.

Nawaz Sharif, Hussain and Maryam, named in the present NAB appeal, are already facing the new references.

Shahbaz Sharif’s implication assumes extraordinary meaning amid an extremely soft line taken by him during the hearings in the Panama case, the proceedings of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and on the July 28 verdict that ousted Nawaz Sharif apart from issuing other directions against Sharifs. Its bearing tremendously increases when it has been decided and publicized that Shahbaz Sharif will be the candidate of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) for the office of the prime minister after the 2018 general elections.

After the embroilment of Sharifs in such cases, only Salman Shahbaz, younger son of the Punjab chief minister, is left. Ironically, Nawaz Sharif’s name was not originally included in the interim reference filed by the NAB in the accountability court way back in March 2000 during Pervez Musharraf’s martial law. However, it was incorporated in the final reference, which was approved by the then NAB Chairman, Lt-Gen (retd) Khalid Maqbool.

The pushed-to-the-wall anti-graft watchdog, after three years of the judgment of the Lahore High Court (LHC), has now sought through its appeal reversal of this decision “in the interest of justice, fair play and equity”.

The appeal mentioned more than once the JIT findings relating to the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case to justify its move. When the JIT has collected further incriminating evidence relating to Hudaibiya Paper Mills, the NAB cannot be debarred or restrained from proceeding further with the investigation, it said. It mentioned that the JIT has recommended that the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case should be reopened. However, the judges have repeatedly stressed that they would ensure that the JIT report, their verdicts and their remarks made during the proceedings do not influence or impact the decision of the accountability court.

It is also a hard fact that the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Panama case had not given any direction to the NAB to appeal against the LHC decision. In its July 28 ruling, the apex court stated that the argument (of Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer) that the JIT overstepped its authority by reopening the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case when this reference was quashed by the LHC does not appear to be correct as the JIT has simply made recommendations in this behalf which can better be dealt with by this court if and when an appeal, before it, as has been undertaken by the NAB Special Prosecutor, is filed and a view to the contrary is taken by the court. This clearly shows that the court did not order the NAB to submit the appeal and left it to the watchdog to take a decision in this regard.

The NAB pondered over this judgment for at least six weeks and maintained its old decision taken by its chairman in the light of the then prosecutor general’s opinion in black and white that no challenge was called for. The NAB had been very firm in its decision and even Chairman Qamar Zaman had told the apex court during its proceedings in the Panama case that he would not file the appeal because his prosecutor had strongly opposed it. This had severely annoyed the judges who had pronounced the NAB dead after hearing its chief’s response.

However, when the NAB was reprimanded last week and subjected to intense pressure for not submitting the appeal, it surrendered because it was left with no choice but yield. As a result, the NAB prosecutor general subsequently appeared before the five-member bench that had handed down the decision in the Panama case and assured that the NAB would file the appeal within a week. Still, the court did not issue any order to him to challenge the LHC decision.

Two LHC judges had first heard a writ petition of Sharifs, seeking quashment of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. They had agreed to quash the reference but one of them had recommended re-investigation by the NAB. Due to the split decision, the then LHC chief justice had appointed a referee judge to decide the matter, who had supported the view that there was no need for fresh investigation. He had also quashed the reference on March 11, 2014 on the grounds that re-investigation would provide an opportunity to investigators to pad up lacunae.

The NAB has now argued that the referee judge was not "competent" to set aside the LHC findings in which the watchdog had been allowed re-investigation.