close
Tuesday March 19, 2024

No live shows on Hudaibiya, rules SC

By Obaid Abrar Khan & Sohail Khan
December 12, 2017


ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday restrained the electronic media from discussing merits and demerits of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case in live talk shows and directed the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to ensure implementation of its order.

On the court order, Pemra issued a directive to all private TV channels telling them not to air any live show regarding the Hudaibiya case. In case of violation, Pemra shall proceed against the channel(s) or programme(s) under the Pemra Ordinance 2002, says a press release.

The court questioned why the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did not take action against Pervez Musharraf for facilitating the exile of the Sharif family in 2000 and observed whether there was any concept of exile in the country’s law.

Separately, an accountability court (AC) declared Finance Minister Ishaq Dar a proclaimed offender in the NAB corruption reference after he repeatedly failed to appear before the court flouting summons.

AC Judge Muhammad Bashir directed Dar’s surety giver to produce the accused in three days before the court or his surety worth Rs5 million will be forfeited. A three-member special bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, heard the appeal filed by NAB against the judgment of Lahore High Court (LHC) delivered in 2014, quashing a reference against the Sharif family in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.

The SC warned NAB's deputy prosecutor with a notice on citing the judgment of the Panama case instead of concentrating on his arguments in the Hudaibiya case to establish that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif influenced the anti-graft body into quashing the reference.

During the course of hearing, the court asked NAB's Special Prosecutor Imranul Haq to convince it on how the respondents – the Sharif family including Mian Nawaz Sharif – had influenced proceedings of the court by quashing Rs1.2 billion Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.

The court also asked the prosecutor to point out where corruption was made in the Hudaibiya case with the observation that the instant case prima facie relates to income tax. The court asked NAB's deputy prosecutor to establish what criminality was made by the accused in the case. It also rejected NAB’s plea seeking an adjournment in its appeal on the grounds that the post of Prosecutor General (PG) was not yet filled. It is pertinent to mention here that recently the post of PG NAB fell vacant after the retirement of Waqas Qadeer Dar.

The court rejected the plea with the observation that the reason to adjourn the case is not substantial enough and took up the matter at 11.30am on Monday. Similarly, the court at the end of the hearing observed that the media can do actual reporting on the instant matter and ruled that the electronic media in live talk shows should refrain from discussing merits and demerits of Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.

Earlier, NAB's deputy prosecutor submitted that in pursuance of the court’s order, documents pertaining to the Hudaibiya Papers were filed with the court. He submitted that the accused nominated in the Hudaibiya reference case were sent on exile on December 10, 2000 while the reference was filed on March 27, 2000 and the Sharif family returned to Pakistan on November 25, 2007 whereas accused Nawaz Sharif took oath as the prime minister on June 5, 2013.

The court asked the special prosecutor how the accused managed to influence the reference filed against him. The prosecutor replied that after Nawaz Sharif became the prime minister, he influenced the process of filing an appeal against the judgment of the LHC quashing the reference against the Sharif family.

Justice Qazi Isa asked why the matter of filing an appeal was kept in cold storage for such a long time. NAB's deputy prosecutor said that at that time the accused was facing a trial in Karachi in the plane hijacking case.

Asked about the Attock Fort matter, the counsel replied that it was made a sub jail. The court asked under what law and why the accused was kept in the Attock Fort. NAB's deputy prosecutor expressed his ignorance on this question.

“Go through the law that says that there will be an open trial if the accused was not a hardcore terrorist,” Justice Qazi Faiz Isa told the prosecutor.

Justice Mushir Alam said that they will need details of the record mentioning when the Attock Fort was declared a sub jail. Justice Qazi Faiz Isa questioned as to how the accused managed to save himself from trial when he was not a free man.

“How the anti-graft body can say that the accused used delaying tactics for escaping the trial or used his influence,” Justice Isa remarked.

The NAB counsel told the court that after the accused was sent abroad on exile, the case was adjourned for an indefinite period. At this, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa observed as to whether there is any concept of exile in law, saying there is concept of absconder but not exile.

The counsel for NAB submitted that there was an agreement between the accused and the government. Justice Isa questioned whether an accused can be sent abroad on exile during his trial. The counsel replied that the exile agreement was made with the consent of the accused. Justice Isa questioned whether a killer will be sent abroad tomorrow in the light of an agreement.

“If you are saying that General Musharraf facilitated the exile of the accused (Nawaz Sharif), then had you taken any action against the facilitator?” Justice Isa asked the NAB deputy prosecutor.

Justice Mushir Alam asked the prosecutor as to why NAB did not arrest the accused upon his return. “Why did not you take the accused into custody when he returned to the country, despite the fact that he was facing a trial in the plane hijacking case?” he asked.

“There was a general, running the country, then how the accused influenced the case,” Justice Qazi Faiz Isa asked the deputy prosecutor. “The accused returned from exile in 2007 but until 2010, NAB did nothing,” he added.

He said that a general was running the country while another general was NAB chairman, then NAB should have filed an application for re-opening the case when the accused returned to the country.

The court was informed that the Prosecutor General had filed an application for restoration of the case that was dismissed on December 17, 2008 for non-prosecution.

The NAB prosecutor told the court that the accused moved the high court against the Hudaibiya Reference and consequently, a stay was granted at which Justice Isa interrupted saying that the learned high court did not grant the stay on application for restoration of the reference but restrained NAB from proceeding with the original reference.

Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel questioned as to what the anti-graft body was doing when the accused filed an application in the high court after five years, challenging its reference.

The court asked about the actual reference and the complainant as well at which NAB's deputy prosecutor submitted that there were some fictitious accounts on which the reference was filed.

He said that the hearing in the reference was adjourned for an indefinite period on August 21, 2008 for which an application was filed for restoration and the court then had fixed the hearing but from September 4, 2008 till November 12, 2008 no proceeding took place and later on November 12, the court dismissed the reference.

He said that on May 3, 2010, the NAB court held the signature of chairman NAB as mandatory for filing a reference adding that during this period, there was no chairman NAB; hence, the application for restoration of the reference was filed late. The court recalled that the court gave the order in May while NAB chairman remained in office till June.

The deputy prosecutor said there was an application pending with the SC against the NAB chairman and was later removed. Justice Qazi Faiz Isa told the deputy prosecutor that all this happened before the accused came into power. “You are undermining your own institution and also attacking it as well and this will be proved very dangerous to NAB in future,” Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked.

“I am not attacking anyone but five judges of the Supreme Court had talked about the Hudaibiya,” he said. At this, Justice Isa said that the Supreme Court had not said anywhere in the judgment that NAB should file an appeal. But NAB's deputy prosecutor said that the Hudaibiya case has direct link with the Panama case.

If the bench hearing the Panama case had not made the observation pertaining to reopening of the Hudaibiya case, would NAB have not filed the appeal against the judgment of the LHC quashing the reference, Justice Isa asked NAB's deputy prosecutor.

When the deputy prosecutor NAB read out the observation made by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa told him to read out the final order of the Panama paper verdict and not the minority view.

“You should read out the majority view and the final order of the court,” Justice Isa asked the deputy prosecutor adding that the final order of the court clearly mentioned that when an appeal was filed before the apex court, it would be looked into.

The court asked the deputy prosecutor NAB to concentrate on his arguments instead of citing the Panama judgment. The NAB deputy prosecutor again touched the Panama issue and said that it cropped up in lieu of the petition filed by Imran Khan Niazi. Justice Isa admonished the deputy prosecutor and said as to who Imran Khan Niazi was.

“We are asking you to concentrate on your arguments but you are not and if you continue to cite the Panama case, we will send you a notice,” Justice Isa warned the NAB deputy prosecutor.

The deputy prosecutor on court's query said four fictitious accounts were opened by accused Ishaq Dar in the name of four persons who were even ignorant about this. He said Dar had called the manager of the bank to his office. The court asked as to whether statements of those persons were recorded in whose names the fictitious accounts were opened. The deputy prosecutor said that they have not those details.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday). Meanwhile, the accountability court declared Dar a proclaimed offender. AC Judge Muhammad Bashir directed Dar’s surety giver to produce the accused in three days or his surety worth Rs5 million will be forfeited.

Judge Bashir, while declaring him an ‘absconder’, had ordered NAB to initiate proceedings under Section 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submit a report within 10 days. The judge had also reduced time from 30 days to 10 days.

The court has also issued a show-cause notice to Dar’s surety giver with directions to explain why his surety worth Rs5 million may not be forfeited. On Monday, the court gave him the last chance to produce Dar or lose his surety.

In his statement, the investigation officer of the reference pertaining to assets beyond means had informed the court that following the issuance of the non-bailable warrants of arrest, Dar deliberately concealed himself from the lawful proceedings; has reportedly absconded to England and he may be declared a proclaimed offender.

Dar's counsel submitted his client's fresh medical reports in the court and pleaded not to declare his client a proclaimed absconder. However, NAB's special prosecutor Imran Shafique opposed the plea, saying that the reports presented before the court differ from each other and do not fulfill the legal requirements set in the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2014, of the United Kingdom.

Ishaq Dar has been in London for some time now, where he is said to be undergoing medical treatment. He is accused of amassing assets beyond his known sources of income. The Supreme Court in its July 28 order of the Panama Papers case had directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file corruption references against the Sharif family including Ishaq Dar.