NAB asked to submit reply on Sharmila's plea

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit replies on a petition field by Sharmila Farooqui, the former special assistant to CM Sindh, by December 8. A division bench headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto heard the petition against the NAB. Upon that the court directed the NAB to submit replies by December 8.
Sharmila Farooqui has assailed the bureau's letter, copies of which were sent to the provincial government, the State Bank of Pakistan and the election commission, with regard to an accountability court's verdict of 2001 that disqualified Sharmila Farooqui from holding any public office for 21 years, asserting that the bureau's officers had acted perfectly in accordance with the law and the NAB ordinance.
A NAB prosecutor submitted that Farooqui, who became a PPP MPA against a reserved seat for women in 2013, was a convict within the meaning of the NAB ordinance as she had reached a plea bargain with the bureau. The NAB also defended its letter sent to the election commission and other departments
The prosecutor said the petitioner had filed a petition due to ulterior motives and malafide intention despite her plea bargain which had not been challenged before and had become final. He said the Ehtesab Act was replaced by the NAB ordinance, which was applicable and had an overriding effect; therefore Section 15 of the NAB ordinance was applicable in view of the petitioner's plea bargain.
The prosecutor said the petitioner could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate as she was stopped to do so after having herself entered into a plea bargain and thereafter keeping mum for a very prolonged period of time when the order of the trial court had already become final by achieving finality in the eye of the law. He requested the court to dismiss the petition. The NAB letter stated that Farooqui, her mother Anisa Farooqui and father Usman Farooqui stood disqualified for 21 years as per the judgement of the accountability court of April 28, 2001, under Section 15 of the ordinance, and sought legal action against her.