ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Curt (IHC) on Monday raised questions over the status of former prime minister and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Mian Nawaz Sharif's bail in Al-Azizia reference.
A two-member bench, comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aamer Farooq raised questions, while hearing ex-PM Nawaz Sharif's petition challenging his non-bailable arrest warrants issued by an accountability court, and requesting the court to permit him to join the Toshakhana reference proceedings through his pleader.
Barrister Jahangir Khan Jadoon, representing Nawaz Sharif, who is currently in the UK and facing a case related to securing a luxury vehicle from Toshakhana, made chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), judge of the accountability court-III and the investigation officer in Toshakhana reference as respondents.
The court said that the counsels were not able to satisfy the court regarding maintainability of the petition. It noted that the petitioner assailed the conviction and sentence handed down by Accountability Court in Al-Azizia case through Crl Appeal No.01/2019 titled "Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs Chairman NAB".
The court noted, "The sentence was suspended for a specified period based on the report of a medical board constituted by the Government of Punjab. The latter could have extended the suspension of sentence if satisfied that the medical condition of the petitioner warranted so."
It is noted that the name of the petitioner was not ordered to be removed from the Exit Control List by this Court.
In reply to a query, the counsels informed the court that the name of the petitioner was removed from the Exit Control List pursuant to the decision taken by the Federal Cabinet.
"However, neither the Federal Government nor the National Accountability Bureau informed this Court regarding the fate of the suspended sentence nor that the name of the petitioner was being removed from the Exist Control List. The petitioner also did not inform this Court nor had sought permission before proceeding abroad," maintained the IHC bench.
It added that in case the suspended sentence on medical ground was not extended by the Government of Punjab, then in such an eventuality the petitioner was required to surrender himself before this Court or to have challenged the executive order before the competent court vested with territorial jurisdiction. The bench observed that the jurisdiction of the IHC under Article 199 of the Constitution is extra ordinary and equitable, therefore, in order to claim relief the petitioner has to satisfy us that he has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction with clean hands. Then, the counsels of former prime minister sought adjournment to seek instructions regarding status of suspension of sentence and argue the maintainability of the petition on the next date of hearing.
The IHC bench, therefore, deferred hearing until August 20th. According to the reference, Sharif as well as former president and co-chairperson of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Asif Ali Zardari had obtained cars from Toshakhana by paying only 15 per cent of the price of the luxury vehicles.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) alleged that ex-PM Yousaf Raza Gillani facilitated the allotment of the vehicles to Zardari and Sharif by "dishonestly" and "illegally" relaxing the procedure for the acceptance and disposal of gifts vide a Cabinet Division memorandum of 2007.
The accountability court-III of Islamabad had issued non-bailable warrants for the PML-N leader for not attending the court's proceeding in the reference and had also initiated the process to declare him a proclaimed offender.
The PML-N leader's counsel adopted, "The bailable, non-bailable arrest warrant and further proclamation under Section 87 of CrPC is the impugned interference in the life and liberty of the petitioner and he has been deprived from his constitutional and fundamental rights, because the petitioner did not conceal himself from any process of the law. The petitioner always holds the rule of law supreme in his life."
The petition said, "The proclamation order dated June 30, 2020 in respect of the petitioner issued by respondent No. 2 [accountability judge] is of the alleged irregularity; hence, on the face of it all the impugned orders seems to be issued due to personal vendetta, victimisation, mala fides, with malice aforethought of the respondent No. 1 [NAB's chairman]."
Therefore, the petition prayed before the court to declare the arrest warrants illegal and as the ex-premier himself desired to join the proceeding of the accountability court, he be allowed to do this through the pleader.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2020
Comments
Comments are closed.