The Lahore High Court on Tuesday sought reply from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) by October 14, on a petition of Maryam Nawaz seeking post arrest bail in Chaudhry Sugar Mills (CSM). Earlier the court asked the petitioner's counsel as to why he has attached a copy of a decision in case of Pakistan ambassador-at-large in US Ali Jahangir Siddiqui with the petition.
Amjad Pervez, the counsel, stated that he just wanted to explain that the NAB had no jurisdiction to investigate matter relating to sale/purchase of a company's shares after amendments in laws unless referred by the Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan.
The court observed that the case being cited by the counsel was disposed of after the NAB closed its inquiry. The NAB accused had Maryam of committing money laundering through investments of variable heavy amounts being main shareholder of the CSM. It said she was involved in money laundering with the help of some foreigners during the period of 1992-93.
It was argued in the petition that all properties of the Sharif family, its business concerns and companies including the CSM had already been thoroughly investigated by the JIT formed by the Supreme Court in Panama Papers case.
It said the Supreme Court had not directed the NAB to file any reference regarding CSM or assets owned by Maryam Nawaz.
The petitioner argued that Section 9 (a) (v) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 envisaged a single offence the commission of which may result in acquisition of multiple assets or pecuniary resources by an accused person. But, it said, acquisition of each asset or pecuniary resource could not amount to a separate offence under the ordinance.
Therefore, it stated that the authorization of an inquiry regarding same offence and assets is tainted with mala fide intension and tantamount to colorable exercise of power by the NAB chairman. Moreover, it said neither petitioner nor co-suspect Abbas ever held any public office or remained dependent. Therefore, it argued, mischief of section 9 (a) (v) of NAO 1999 was not attracted in the case. The petition also questioned the jurisdiction of the chairman NAB for approving the impugned inquiry under Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010.
Comments
Comments are closed.