Nawaz challenges multiple NAB references

ISLAMABAD: Deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif Friday challenged the multiple corruption references, filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against him in pursuance of the Panama Papers case judgment, and requested the Supreme Court to revisit its order of July 28 in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The former prime minister stated that any invalid enunciation of law, which would cause drastic adverse effects on the people at large, and the state is presentee or in futurio, is liable to be revisited by the apex court in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The former PM filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution through his lawyer Advocate Khwaja Haris Ahmed making the Federation through Minister of Law and Justice, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through its Chairman, Accountability Court No1, Hassan
Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar as respondents.

The former prime minister prayed to the apex court to declare it the final order of July 28, 2017, directing for filing of three references against him, was per incuriam, being repugnant to the provisions of Article 4, 9, 10-A, 13 and 25 of the Constitution.

He further prayed to the court to declare that an accused under Section (a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 shall be tried through a single reference, irrespective of the number of the assets, alleged to have been held by him on any such date that the reference is filed against him, strictly in accordance with the law.

The ousted deposed premier further prayed to the court to declare that the multiple trails on a single charge would prejudice his fundamental right to be dealt with in accordance with the law, fair trial and protection against double punishment, guaranteed under Articles 4, 10-A and 13 of the Constitution.

Similarly, the former PM prayed to the court to suspend the proceedings before the Accountability Court No 1 in references, which he claimed are repugnant to the provision of NAO, 1999, CrPC and the Constitution, till the filing of a consolidate reference by National Accountability Bureau in respect of the alleged commission of offence under Section 9(a)(v)of NAO, 1999.

On July 28, 2017, a five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in the Panama Papers case, disqualified Nawaz Sharif as the PM under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution for being dishonest while hiding a salary he was entitled to get from his son’s Dubai-based company Capital FZE.

The court had also directed NAB to file references against Nawaz and his children in six weeks in the accountability court and directed the trial court to decide the references within six months.

The court had ordered filing of references against Nawaz Sharif and his children regarding Avenfield properties in London, Azizia steel company and Hill Metal Establishment etc. Similarly, the court had also assigned Justice Ijazul Ahsan a supervisory role to monitor the progress of the accountability court proceedings.

The former premier and his sons have been named in all three NAB references, while Maryam and husband Safdar have been named only in the Avenfield reference.

In his petition, the disqualified PM submitted that the separate trials of an accused for a single offence are contrary to the principles of the criminal’s justice and the procedure provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

He contended that the composite allegations made against him in all the three references actually tantamount to allegation of commission of one offence and as such, the filing of the three separate references and three separate trials for allegation of one commission of one offence will be in gross violation of the provisions of section 9(a)(v) of the NAO, 1999, as well as volative of the guarantee of due process as envisaged in Article 4 of the constitution and his fundamental rights inter alia under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The former premier submitted that the court had unlimited jurisdiction under the constitutional provisions and has the obligation to intervene, at any stage, and correct any judgment which is per incurium.

In this respect, he cited various judgments wherein the apex court had exercised it original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

In this respect, the disqualified prime minister cited various judgments, wherein the apex court while exercising its real jurisdiction under Article 18(4) 3 of the Constitution revisited its earlier judgments.

He contended that in the judgment reported as Khaliluz Zaman verses Supreme Appellate Court; PLD 1994 SC 885, the apex court reversed the decision of the Supreme Appellate Court , in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

In the judgment, the court had held that “In this case, the court vide impugned judgments had ordered the petitioner to be hanged to death although he was/is not liable to death in law for the offence allegedly committed by him.

“The court had ruled that there can be no case more fit proper than the present one for interference in exercise of our original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

“Question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution is very much involved; therefore we feel that in exercise of our jurisdiction, we must come to the rescue of the petitioner to save his life”.

Nawaz Sharif questioned as to whether in exercise of power under the Constitution, this court has unlimited jurisdiction to reopen, revisit or review, and for this purpose examine any judgment earlier pronounced by this court to set the law correct, to cure injustice, save it from becoming an abuse of the process of law and this judicial system.

Meanwhile, commenting over the petition, former judge of the Lahore High Court and senior advocate of the Supreme Court Shah Khawar termed the above para in the petition a smart manoeuvre.

Talking to The News, he said that in fact the Supreme Court has the power of a judicial review of a judgment, delivered by it even if it attained finality could be re-visited by a larger bench of the apex court.

In this respect, he referred to the judgment delivered in Tika Muhammad Iqbal case which was re-visited by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in 2007 after the restoration of judiciary.