NAB requests CJP to form larger bench to review Hudabiya Paper Mills scam

NAB submits application to CJP noting down previous instances of formation of larger bench

Hasnaat Mailk February 01, 2018
PHOTO: EXPRESS

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) submitted an application to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar requesting the formation of a larger bench to hear its review petition against the Supreme Court (SC) judgement on Hudaibiya Papers Mill scam.

The application reads, "That in order to resolve this anomaly, it would be just and proper to constitute a larger bench consisting of seven Hon’ble Members of this Court for the hearing of this civil review petition."

SC dismisses NAB's appeal to reopen Hudaibiya Mills case against Sharifs

NAB argued that Hudaibiya Papers Mill has direct 'nexus' with Panama Paper scandal PLD 2017 SC 256. In the application, they say that two benches have expressed different views on the matter, and the formation of a larger bench will be able to reconcile and decide on the matter.

The country's top-graft buster also mentioned events in the past when larger benches have been constituted to hear review petitions.

In December, the Supreme Court dismissed the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) appeal to reopen Hudabiya Paper Mills case – known as the mother of all corruption cases against Sharifs – by declaring it not maintainable.

The top court’s three-member bench – comprising Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel – rejected NAB’s appeal against the order of a divisional bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC),  which in 2014 had quashed the graft reference.

NAB supposed to prove Sharifs’ wrongdoing, says SC

Though the 17-year-old Hudabiya Paper Mills case had been in the headlines for the last one year, the three-member bench took only four hearings to conclude that the case could not be reopened and that it was a case of ‘income tax’ rather than ‘money laundering’. A written order would be released later on, detailing the bench’s reasons for its decision, the bench observed

Facebook Conversations

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Load Next Story