Masoom Shah’s case: Replies sought from accountability court, NAB
Petition argues court has no power to ask NAB to file another reference
Former adviser to Chief Minister Syed Masoom Shah. PHOTO: FILE
PESHAWAR:
The Peshawar High Court issued notices to Accountability Court No 1, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairperson and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa director general, after former adviser to chief minister, Syed Masoom Shah filed a writ for his release.
The petitioner’s counsels, barristers Zahoorul Haq and Waqar Ali, told justices Nisar Hussain and Roohul Amin the accountability court asked NAB to file another reference in Shah’s case, without having the authority to do so. They said Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 had been misinterpreted.
The counsels told the bench Shah was arrested on charges of accumulating illegal assets and was handed to NAB on a 52-day physical remand. They added the petitioner’s application for voluntary return was dismissed but his plea bargain agreement was accepted by the chairperson of NAB.
Ali said after the agreement was accepted an application and affidavit were filed at the accountability court as it was a legal requirement. “The petitioner also deposited Rs91 million as down payment, two bank guarantees worth Rs150 million,” he added, saying despite all this another reference was asked for. The petitioner’s counsel cited a similar case in which the accused Muhammad Saeed’s plea bargain was accepted by NAB but declined by the accountability court. “Saeed took the case to PHC and where the accountability court was directed to accept the plea bargain and the accused was granted bail.”
The attorneys argued once the plea bargain application is approved by the chairman of NAB, the court has to approve it as per law but the trial court dismissed the plea bargain and directed NAB to file another reference.
Besides, the petition filed at PHC read Accountability Court No 1 went against the law and issued directives to NAB to file a reference. The petition said the court misinterpreted Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and exercised jurisdiction it does not hold.
Requesting bail
The petition further said the accountability court engaged the petitioner in a discussion in the open court which was not warranted under the law. “The court embarked on certain facts which were not part of the record placed before it and were part of his personal information, observation and presumption,” the petition read. Moreover, it said the court also mistook the law by freezing the plea bargain amount, bank guarantees and the gold pledged as security under Section 12 of the NAO, that talks about the power of NAB to freeze property. During the proceedings, the counsels argued NAB had complete information about the assets of the accused and then approved the plea bargain application. They contended the accountability court order to initiate another enquiry was not lawful.
Besides, they said, the [plea] agreement was not fake as no enquiry or investigation was done to prove its lack of authenticity. They adopted the accountability court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to NAB, adding the accused was behind bars for months therefore he should be released on bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 2nd, 2016.
The Peshawar High Court issued notices to Accountability Court No 1, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairperson and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa director general, after former adviser to chief minister, Syed Masoom Shah filed a writ for his release.
The petitioner’s counsels, barristers Zahoorul Haq and Waqar Ali, told justices Nisar Hussain and Roohul Amin the accountability court asked NAB to file another reference in Shah’s case, without having the authority to do so. They said Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 had been misinterpreted.
The counsels told the bench Shah was arrested on charges of accumulating illegal assets and was handed to NAB on a 52-day physical remand. They added the petitioner’s application for voluntary return was dismissed but his plea bargain agreement was accepted by the chairperson of NAB.
Ali said after the agreement was accepted an application and affidavit were filed at the accountability court as it was a legal requirement. “The petitioner also deposited Rs91 million as down payment, two bank guarantees worth Rs150 million,” he added, saying despite all this another reference was asked for. The petitioner’s counsel cited a similar case in which the accused Muhammad Saeed’s plea bargain was accepted by NAB but declined by the accountability court. “Saeed took the case to PHC and where the accountability court was directed to accept the plea bargain and the accused was granted bail.”
The attorneys argued once the plea bargain application is approved by the chairman of NAB, the court has to approve it as per law but the trial court dismissed the plea bargain and directed NAB to file another reference.
Besides, the petition filed at PHC read Accountability Court No 1 went against the law and issued directives to NAB to file a reference. The petition said the court misinterpreted Section 25 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and exercised jurisdiction it does not hold.
Requesting bail
The petition further said the accountability court engaged the petitioner in a discussion in the open court which was not warranted under the law. “The court embarked on certain facts which were not part of the record placed before it and were part of his personal information, observation and presumption,” the petition read. Moreover, it said the court also mistook the law by freezing the plea bargain amount, bank guarantees and the gold pledged as security under Section 12 of the NAO, that talks about the power of NAB to freeze property. During the proceedings, the counsels argued NAB had complete information about the assets of the accused and then approved the plea bargain application. They contended the accountability court order to initiate another enquiry was not lawful.
Besides, they said, the [plea] agreement was not fake as no enquiry or investigation was done to prove its lack of authenticity. They adopted the accountability court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to NAB, adding the accused was behind bars for months therefore he should be released on bail.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 2nd, 2016.