NAB files review plea in Hudaibiya Mills

ISLAMABAD – The National Accountability Bureau on Monday filed a review petition against the apex court judgment in the Hudaibiya Papers Mills case on the plea that the reference against the Sharif family had been adjourned sine die due to collusion among PPP, PML-N and General (r) Pervez Musharraf.

The petition said: “Adjournment of Reference 5 of 2000 sine die was due to collusion among PPP, PML-N and General (r) Pervez Musharraf government. This was the reason that the NAB authorities showed no interest in prosecution of the reference.”

The Sharif family was never subjected to intensive investigation because they never remained into the custody of the NAB in Reference No 05/2000.

There is not an iota of evidence that the NAB had any animosity against Hudaibya Mills and Nawaz Sharif, so the contents of Paragraph No 23 are incorrect, the petition contended.

The petition further said it was not right that the regime of Pervez Musharraf or PPP became inimical towards PML-N after 2007; rather they were instrumental in bringing back Sharif family into the political arena.

The NAB , through the review petition, prayed to the apex court to accept the review petition by condoning delay and issue notices to the respondents in the larger interest of justice.

The NAB has made Hudaibiya Paper Mills Ltd, Nawaz Sharif, Shehbaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz, Humza Shehbaz, Shamim Akhtar, Sabiha Abbas, Maryam Safdar, the federation and the Rawalpindi Accountability Court judge respondents.

The petition said the top court had not given consideration to some material aspects of the case, errors, adverse findings, remarks and observations in the judgment, which call for correction. “The errors in the judgment need to be addressed,” it added.

The NAB contended the apex court had discarded the plea of Ishaq Dar as his statement had been recorded before a magistrate after the grant of pardon by the NAB chairman as required under Section 26 of NAO, 1999.

The bureau urged the top court to reconsider Section 26 of NAO, 1999, which contains two parts. The first part pertains to the grant of pardon by the NAB chairman and recording of the statement before him while the second part of Section 26 (d) (e) of NAO, 1999, pertains to the examination of the approver during the trial.

The detailed judgment is in conflict with the settled principle of law which says when a case is not considered as maintainable on technical grounds, the court should not discuss merits of the case and if the court goes for deliberation of the case on merits, it should have sought guidance from the judgment rendered by this court in the Panama case.

The NAB said the petition was dismissed not only on the ground of limitation but also on merits. The petition stated the NAB had earlier decided not to assail the LHC judgment dated 11-03-2014 before the august court, but after pronouncement of the judgment in the Panama case, the said decision was revisited regarding the Hudaibiya case.

In the Panama verdict, the larger bench had cast serious aspersions on Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, whereas the judgment under review by the three-member bench took a different and contrary view, diverging from the views of the larger bench, which is not in consonance with the settled principles and norms of law.

The petition said it is a well-established rule that the reinvestigation can be carried out in any case unless the accused is acquitted on merits after a full-fledged trial while technicalities, if so considered a ground for quashing of proceedings, can never be a hurdle in conducting a reinvestigation on the issue for the purposes of a substantial justice.

The NAB stated in the petition that during the period from 1991 to 1998, accused ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, by corrupt, dishonest and illegal means, obtained and sought to obtain for himself, for his close family members and other persons pecuniary advantage amounting to Rs 642.743 million as per books of M/s Hudaibiya Papers Mills and the payment of USD 8.7 million made for settlement of its accounts with M/s Al-Towfeeq Company, London, invoking section 9(a) (iv) of NAO, 1999.

The review petition said Paragraph No 18 of the Hudaibiya judgment is per incuriam as the reference had not been dismissed, but adjourned sine die and if the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court quashing the reference is set aside, the proceedings would commence from the stage it was halted.

Source: The Nation