Farooq Naek challenges AC jurisdiction in Park lane reference

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

Zardari's lawyer Farooq H. Naek prayed the court to decide this petition before preceding the trial in corruption reference.

However, NAB's Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzafar Abbasi opposed the petition and requested the court to dismissed the same as it was baseless.

AC-II Judge Azam Khan conducted hearing on Park Lane corruption reference against Asif Ali Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur and others.

During the course of proceeding, the court witnessed exchange of heated remarks between the legal team of co-accused and NAB prosecutor regarding the maintainability of a new petition filed by Farooq H. Naek.

The petition stated that the matter was related to the banking courts as it was related to loan default in accordance of the law.

The NAB's prosecutor opposed the application stating that the new application by the accused was just a delay tact as it was similar to previous petition.

He prayed the court to reject this application with a heavy fine on the accused.

The court express annoyance on two sides arguments and remarked that it would not allow any sort of politics inside the courtroom.

The court directed the petitioner to give arguments on previous application and remarked that it would decide the matter together.

Giving arguments, Farooq H. Naek said that the NAB reference had not directly alleged his client Zardari for taking loan and then default.

It was not NAB's jurisdiction until the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) issue notice to 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, he questioned, if no then how hid client could be blamed for embezzlement.

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

The NAB's lawyer said that 77pc amount of 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 NAB for sharing the relevant documents so that they could file the written comments.

Sardar Muzafar said that NAB had not given any separate petition it had just arranged the volume.

He said that the accused had not move a review petition when the Supreme Court referred the matter to NAB for filing reference.

He said that Asif Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto had 25 percent shares each in Park Lane Company, adding that Parthenon was front line company set up just to receive loans.

A property of Park Lane was mortgaged which was not exist in actual, he pleaded.

After this, the court adjourned hearing of the case till July 23, wherein Sardar Muzafar Abbasi would continue his arguments.