SHC reserves verdict on Dr Asim’s plea

Petitioner wanted to transfer power of attorney to son

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) reserved on Monday its verdict on a petition filed by Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Karachi division President Dr Asim Hussain after the federal government and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) vehemently opposed the plea.

A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, reserved the verdict to be pronounced on a date to be notified later by the office.

At the outset of the hearing, the judges questioned why the petitioner wanted to transfer his power of attorney to his son once he was out of jail on bail and could look after the properties himself.



Dr Asim’s lawyer said that while the petitioner was released from jail on bail, he could not travel to Dubai to look after his business.

The lawyer said the NAB chairperson had stated that Dr Asim’s properties could also be seized in connection with corruption references despite the fact there was no law in the country that allows seizing properties abroad.

He further argued that the federal government could not hinder the petitioner from transferring power of attorney in respect of his properties in favour of his son. He added the purpose of transferring power of attorney was to enable his son, Amad Hussain, to look after the businesses and properties. All the requisite documents were provided to the foreign affairs ministry for verification but the officials refused to do so, he said.



The court was informed that the delays in transferring the power of attorney were causing financial losses to the petitioner. Therefore, the lawyer pleaded that the court direct the foreign affairs ministry to verify the petitioner’s power of attorney as soon as possible.

Federal government’s opposition

Opposing the request, the additional attorney-general, Salman Talibuddin, said Dr Asim Hussain is a Pakistani citizen and corruption cases were pending against him in the country. He questioned how the petitioner had earned so much money and how he transferred the same abroad.

The federal law officer argued that the petitioner must be asked about the source of the money that he transferred abroad, adding that he should also be questioned if he had transferred his business and money abroad with the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan.



Talibuddin said Dr Asim wanted to transfer his businesses of real estate and properties to his son.

Justice Ghaffar asked as to whether the petitioner had mentioned the details of his businesses and properties in the power of attorney documents.

To this, the additional attorney-general argued that the important question was that how Dr Asim transferred the huge amount of money abroad. “Did he transfer this money in the brief case,” he said, making an indirect reference to super model Ayyan Ali’s case. He argued that the accused, who was in the country, wanted to authorise his son to sell his properties that are located abroad.

Talibuddin said Amad Hussain should approach the accountability court for the purpose. He pointed out that even though the petition mentions the Zia Medical Centre, Dubai, and that Amad Hussain is a Canadian citizen, the same were not mentioned in the power of attorney.



The federal law officer said the petitioner should first disclose the source of income and the source of its transfer abroad. He pleaded that the court dismiss the petition for having no merits.

NAB stance

NAB’s special prosecutor also claimed that the details of the properties were missing in the petition, adding that Dr Asim wanted to transfer the powers to his son to look after all his businesses and properties.

The prosecutor alleged that the petitioner wanted to transfer unlimited powers to his son abroad.

Dr Asim’s lawyer argued that since the accumulation of illegal assets and transfer of money were merely allegations at this stage, therefore, the money laundering allegations had nothing to do with the power of attorney.



He pointed out that even the accountability court had permitted the petitioner to visit the foreign affairs ministry’s camp office in Karachi to execute his power of attorney in respect of his son, adding that NAB had not challenged the accountability court’s order.

The lawyer contended that NAB had all the details of Dr Asim’s properties, which is why they should approach the trial court if they had any objection regarding those properties instead of raising objections in the high court.

He argued that not allowing the petitioner to execute his power of attorney is a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Concluding the arguments, he pleaded that the court order the foreign affairs ministry to verify the power of attorney.