Hudaibiya case: NAB files review petition with SC

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Monday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, seeking the reopening of the case.

Last year on December 15, a three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mushir Alam dismissed the NAB appeal seeking to set aside the judgment of the Lahore High Court (LHC) delivered in 2014, quashing a reference against the Sharif family in Hudaibiya Paper Mills.

As per Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, a review petition needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgment or order of the court.

On Monday, NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Imranul Haq filed the review petition, praying that the impugned judgment under review might be reviewed and by accepting the applications for condonation of delay. The NAB also prayed that notice might graciously be issued to respondents in the larger interest of justice and paragraphs No 6, 23, 27 & 32 of the judgment under review might be expunged from the judgment.

Earlier, NAB had requested the Supreme Court to allow the body for reopening of the case in the wake of July 28 verdict passed by the apex court’s five-judge larger bench in the Panama Papers case. However, the Supreme Court had rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was not maintainable.

The court, while announcing the detailed judgment in the instant matter on January 5, had ruled that NAB showed lack of interest to file a reference against the Sharif family before the accountability court in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case whereas the Sharifs were denied due process of law in the matter.

In its review, NAB submitted that reinvestigation of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case could not be stopped, adding while announcing the verdict in response to the NAB appeal, the Supreme Court had overlooked several points of the anti-graft body.

The NAB pointed a paragraph of the detailed judgment which said that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, were “subjected to intensive investigation and by those who would be considered inimical to them. Whereas in paragraph No 28 at page 23, it has been held as under:- We enquired whether respondents Nos 1 to 9 were called upon to explain the allegations and the learned prosecutor states that there is nothing on record to confirm this.” It contended that the respondents Nos 1 to 9 were never subjected to intensive investigation because they never remained in the custody of the NAB in Reference No 05/2000.

The NAB submitted that there was not an iota of evidence that NAB had any animosity against the Respondent No 1 and 2 hence the reference on this behalf in the paragraph No 23 is incorrect. The anti-graft body contended that the observation as given in paragraph No 23, which is reproduced herein below is also incorrect:-

“The animus towards Respondent No 2 can also be gathered from the fact that the sentence of imprisonment for life, awarded to him by the trial court in the hijacking case, was sought to be enhanced to death.”

“Neither the NAB had/has any animus towards Respondent No 2 as mentioned in paragraph No 23 nor the NAB has filed the appeal in the hijacking case, hence observation/remarks have seriously prejudice and impartiality of the institution and wrongly resulted in the dismissal of the civil petition”, says the review petition.

That it is well established that the reinvestigation can be carried out in any case unless the accused is acquitted on merit after a full-fledged trial and the technicalities, if so considered ground for quashing of proceeding, can never be a hurdle in conducting a reinvestigation on the issue in order to provide substantial justice.

The NAB deputy prosecutor contended that the apex court had discarded the statement of Ishaq Dar on wrong premises as it was recorded before learned magistrate after grant of pardon, by NAB chairman, as required under Section 26 NAO 1999, as per prevailing practice of recording of statement of approver before magistrate even in ordinary criminal cases, although not required by specific provision of Criminal Procedure Code.