Park Lane case: Zardari moves another plea challenging AC’s jurisdiction

ISLAMABAD: Former president Asif Ali Zardari's lawyer Tuesday moved another petition to an accountability court (AC) challenging its jurisdiction to hear the Park Lane reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

Farouk H. Naek prayed the court to decide the petition before the trial began. However, NAB’s Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi opposed the petition and requested the court to dismiss it being baseless. AC-II Judge Azam Khan conducted the hearing in the Park Lane corruption reference against Asif Ali Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur and others.

During the proceedings, the court witnessed an exchange of harsh remarks between the legal team of the co-accused and the NAB prosecutor on the maintainability of the new petition filed by Farouk H. Naek.

The petition stated that the matter was related to the banking court. The NAB prosecutor opposed the application stating that the new application was just a delaying tactic similar to the previous petition. He prayed the court to reject the application with a heavy fine on the accused.

The judge expressed annoyance and remarked that he would not allow any sort of politics inside the courtroom. The judge directed the petitioner to give arguments on the previous application and remarked that it would decide the matter together.

Giving arguments, Naek said the NAB reference had not directly alleged his client, Zardari, for taking loan and then the default. It was not NAB's jurisdiction until the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) issued a notice to the defaulter.

Naek said no notice had been served to Parthenon, Asif Zardari, or Park Lane Company by the SBP. “Whether Zardari had asked anybody not to pay loan back? If no, then how my client could be blamed for embezzlement?” asked Naik.

He argued that the punishment in this case was three-year imprisonment in accordance with the 2001 ordinance related to the financial institutions, while it was 14-year imprisonment in the NAB Ordinance.

The NAB lawyer said 77% amount of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) had been embezzled in this case. He argued that it was a case related to loss to the national exchequer.

To this, Naek requested the court to ask the NAB for sharing the relevant documents so that they could file the written comments. Sardar Muzaffar said NAB had not given any separate petition and it had just arranged the volume.

He said the accused had not moved a review petition when the Supreme Court had referred the matter to the NAB for filing a reference. He said a property of Park Lane was mortgaged, which did not exist. After this, the court adjourned the hearing until July 23. –