A hat-trick of embarrassment for NAB

ISLAMABAD: Saaf Pani Project, Ramazan Sugar Mills and Ashiana Housing Scheme - the three corruption cases made by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against Shahbaz Sharif and others- have turned out to be a hat-trick of huge embarrassment for NAB at the hands of the superior judiciary.

In at least two of these cases, the Lahore High Court (LHC) finds mala fide on part of the NAB which may pave the way for criminal action against those who had made these cases.

Constitutional expert Wasim Sajjad, when approached, told The News that in the final judgment if the court finds “mala fide” then it would lead to criminal proceedings against the responsible. He, however, said that in bail case, the court orders are considered interim so at this stage the action against those who are considered to have acted mala fidely will be a premature move.

After a drubbing in Saaf Pani case, NAB has now been laughed out of the court by LHC in Ramazan Sugar and Ashiana cases against Punjab former chief minister Shahbaz Sharif and present Leader of Opposition and PML-N president.

In all three cases, the LHC found no abuse of authority or violation of law, rules and procedure. Rather court held that no corruption, kickback, commission or illegal gratification was alleged even by the NAB. The corruption watchdog had alleged abuse of authority and illegalities against former three-time chief minister and his key bureaucratic aides but failed to prove any allegation.

Despite the fact that at bail stage courts make cursory assessment of allegations and do not go deep down but the Lahore High Court in at least two cases- Saaf Pani and Ramazan Sugar- found mala fide on part of the NAB.

According to certain legal minds, some of whom have even expressed their view on social media, this is a damning indictment of the NAB as an institution and its officials. “The three consecutive rulings of LHC Divisional Bench had endorsed the hue and cry that opposition parties have been raising against the leading anti-corruption agency of the country established by former dictator Gen Musharraf,” an official source said.

The source while referring to the court orders said, “This is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the anti-corruption system spearheaded by the NAB”. He added, “Everyone is aware of questionable capacity and intentions of the NAB, but more discomforting rather alarming is the state of judicial oversight on the NAB by trial courts”. What has come out after high court ruling is that innocent people with unblemished personal and professional integrity have been remanded to the NAB custody for months. They have been made to suffer in jail six to ten months, in cases where not even a procedural wrong was found, what to speak of corruption.

The LHC on the bail application of Shahbaz Sharif in Ashiana Housing Scheme and Ramazan Sugar Mills ruled that Shahbaz neither misused his authority nor misappropriated funds allocated for the project or received illegal gratifications, commission or kickbacks.

In the Ashiana case, the court ruled that not an inch of state land was given to anyone. In Saaf Pani case the management saved almost Rs400 million whereas in Ramazan Sugar Mills case, the court found that the drain, which the NAB alleged was built for Ramazan Sugar Mills, was a “public welfare project”.

While dealing with NAB’s Ashiana case, the LHC referred to PTI government housing scheme to expose the double standards of the NAB, and said, “It is not understandable that as to why the NAB is insisting that the project (Ashiana Housing) should have been executed in the government mode instead of public private partnership mode when the later mode is also lawful, as envisaged under the Public Private Partnership Act, 2014.

It is also noteworthy that even the sitting government has launched a project for the construction of 5,000,000 houses in Pakistan under the same mode (public private partnership) and no objection has so far been raised in this respect by the NAB.”

The IHC also cited SC’s observations in Zaigham Asharaf vs State case, “To curtail the liberty of a person is a serious step in law, therefore the judges should apply a judicial mind with a deep thought for reaching at a fair and proper conclusion albeit tentatively however, this exercise shall not be carried out in a vacuum or in a flimsy and casual manner, as that will defeat the ends of justice.“