Hudaibiya case: NAB speechless before Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned as to why the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did not opt for proceedings against the Sharif family in Rs1.2 billion Hudaibiya Paper Mills case when they were in the country for nine months during the reign of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf.

During the hearing, NAB was unable to answer various questions asked by the court, as the prosecutor himself admitted that he wasn’t fully prepared. A three-member special bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, heard the appeal filed by NAB against the Lahore High Court judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference.

The court asked Imran-ul-Haq – NAB's special prosecutor –to convince it as to how the respondents – the Sharif family including Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif – had influenced the proceedings by quashing the case.

“You have to convince us pertaining to the merit of this instant matter and how the respondents, the Sharif family, managed to influence the case by quashing the said reference. We will then be able to proceed in the matter,” Justice Mushir asked the prosecutor.

Justice Isa asked as to why the anti-graft body did not proceed in nine months against the Sharif family in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case as he said that the reference, according to the special prosecutor, was re-filed on March 27, 2000 whereas the Sharif family was sent in exile on December 10, 2000.

The court observed that as per NAB, the respondents were in the country on March 27, 2000, then why they were not proceeded against in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. On the court query, Imran submitted that the accused returned to the country on November 27, 2007.

The three-member bench also asked whether Nawaz was sent abroad or he left the country willingly. Justice Isa remarked sending someone abroad forcibly and escaping from the court were different things, adding that on whose orders Nawaz was sent abroad and the reference was prepared. The NAB prosecutor said Nawaz was sent abroad on the orders of the-then chief executive Pervez Musharraf.

When asked when the accused left the country, Imran said they were exiled in December 2000 and returned to Pakistan in November 2007, adding that they influenced the case in 2014. “Did you do anything against the respondents?” Justice Isa asked the special prosecutor. “We filed an application on August 31, 2008,” he replied.

Imran contended that the accused had used the Economic Reforms Act to get away with their money laundering, adding that fake forms were prepared for the purpose of money laundering into foreign accounts.

To another question, he said Asif Ali Zardari was the president at that time, saying that the Sharif family influenced the proceedings of Hudaibiya Paper Mills case after 2014 and the LHC quashed the reference on different and technical footing.

He submitted that the documents would be produced before the court, if ordered, adding that the [referee judge of the] high court dismissed the reference and restrained the anti-graft body from re-filing it in 2014.

Justice Alam, however, observed that the referee judge had to side with one of the judges' decisions in the case. But the prosecutor contended that the referee judge had declared the decision of one of the judges as null and void. He submitted that as the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was related to the Panama Leaks, the anti-graft body filed an appeal against the LHC judgment after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 28.

At this, Justice Isa told the prosecutor that the court was hearing the Hudaibiya reference, not the Panama case. The judge, addressing Imran, said, “Three things are very much important in the matter: firstly, the nature of criminal offence, secondly which clause of Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance is applicable to this matter and thirdly, you did not allege the matter of beyond-the-source income of the accused”.

To a query, the court was informed that the matter relating to the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was mentioned in Volume 8 of the JIT report in the Panama Leaks case. The court then sought the Volume 8 and asked the prosecutor to read Page 195 of it.

When the court asked for the original reference, the special prosecutor replied that he did not have it, to which the court observed that it was necessary for it to have that to proceed with. Justice Alam remarked what the purpose of the hearing was in the absence of original reference.

The bench directed the Bureau to submit details pertaining to the terms of the NAB chairmen and the procedure of their appointments since the inception of the anti-graft body. The NAB should also inform the court as to who exercised the influence at that time of appointing a chairman that could influence the proceedings of the Hudaibiya case and quashing of reference as well against the accused persons, it added.

The court further directed NAB to inform it as to who was the complainant and what complaint was made in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. It asked the special prosecutor to provide copies of the accountability court Rawalpindi, particularly the order passed on August 21, 2008 wherein the case was adjourned sine-die.

Similarly, the court directed that NAB should also submit a detailed report pertaining to the periods in which the accused remained in public office as well as details relating to the exile and return of the accused persons.

The court further asked NAB to inform it as to which provisions of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance attracted the accused persons. The court directed NAB to submit all these details by December 11 and adjourned further proceedings.

NAB on September 20 had filed an appeal, requesting the apex court to set aside the LHC judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case through which Nawaz and his family members were acquitted.

Nawaz, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif (late), Hussain Nawaz, Hamza Shahbaz, Shamim Akhtar and Mrs Sabiha Abbas, Mrs Maryam Safdar, the Federation and the Accountability Court No IV Rawalpindi judge had been made respondents in the appeal.

NAB had requested the apex court to examine the legality, propriety and vires of the impugned judgment of March 11, 2014 and hence may be set aside in the interest of justice, fair play and equity, adding that the impugned judgment is not passed in consonance with the dictums laid down by the apex court.

It was contended that the LHC referee judge was not competent to set aside the findings of the high court, in which NAB had been allowed to re-initiate the investigations against the Sharif family members.

The anti-graft body had submitted that in view of the fact that the JIT, which was constituted by the apex court while dealing with the petitions for probing the Panama Leaks, when collected further incriminating material regarding the Hudaibiya Paper Mills, it (NAB) cannot be debarred or restrained from proceeding further with the investigation. Hence, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment to the extent of re-investigation in order to fortify and corroborate the material collected by the JIT.

The JIT had in its report recommended that the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case should be reopened. It is pertinent to mention that the Hudaibiya Paper Mills money laundering reference was initiated on the basis of an April 25, 2000 confessional statement of Ishaq Dar, wherein he admitted his role in laundering money to the tune of $14.86 million on behalf of the Sharifs through fictitious accounts in 1990s. The witness was, however, pardoned by the then NAB chairman.

LHC referee Justice Sardar Shamim had quashed the reference on March 11, 2014 on the grounds that if a re-investigation was allowed against the Sharif family, it would provide an opportunity to the investigators to pad up lacunas. The High Court had quashed the case as the PML-N continued to claim that Dar's statement was taken under duress. Later, NAB had decided not to challenge the decision.

Nawaz was not named in the interim reference filed in March 2000, however, the Bureau in the final reference against the Hudaibiya Paper Mills – approved by the then NAB chairman Khalid Maqbool – had accused him along with Shahbaz, Abbas, Hussain, Hamza, Shamim, Sabiha and Maryam.

The Hudaibiya Paper Mills case came to the limelight when a five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, took up the PTI’s plea to disqualify Dar on the charges of facilitating the Sharif family in alleged money laundering of Rs1.2 billion.

The decision of closing the Hudaibiya case was taken by the NAB authorities on the grounds that earlier in October 2011, an LHC Rawalpindi Bench restrained the accountability court from proceeding in the matter after Nawaz and members of his family challenged the revival of the references and requested the court to quash the cases.