SC reverses order in former CJP’s son-in-law’s case

Iftikhar Chaudhry’s daughter moves court to get direction withdrawn

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has reversed its earlier order for placing the name of former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry‘s son-in-law and other family members on the Exit Control List (ECL).

On June 3 this year, the two-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, while hearing a suo motu case directed the interior ministry to place names of the former CJP’s son-in-law Murtaza Amjad and his relatives, including Muhammad Amjad, Mrs Anjum Amjad and Mustafa Amjad on the ECL. They are the owners of the controversial Eden Housing Scheme.

The bench also noted that they had left the country on April 12 after NAB moved into action, probing the matter of non-allotment of plots to allotees.

For ensuring their presence in Pakistan, Justice Nisar had ordered the NAB to issue red warrant against them too. He had also asked NAB to ask the interior ministry to place their names on the ECL.

Former CJP’s daughter Ifra Murtaza and her husband approached the apex court on Thursday against its June 3 order.

The review petition stated that the family was involved in the real estate business under the banner of Eden from 2005. Murtaza was director between 2007 and 2009, during which he took no part in the decision-making process of the Edhen housing society.



The petitioners, it stated, were not involved in any illegal transactions but they were being maligned in the matter which had nothing to do with them.

After the red warrant was executed on the SC order, Murtaza was detained by the Dubai police a few days ago.

The petition stated that the petitioner, Ifra, and her children had suffered because of her husband’s “illegal detention”.

Murtaza, the petition stated, was unable to freely travel even to face a fair inquiry in this matter.

Contending that the apex court had rendered its verdict in Murtaza’s absence, the petitioner stated that because of this, proper facts had not been brought before the court.

The petition also contended that the court’s earlier order amounted to a punishment and inquiry against Eden housing society was meant to harass the family and force them to abandon their legitimate business. “The whole exercise by NAB is mala fide.”

It contended that the apex court’s order was against the “general principles of separation of powers” as laid down for … original jurisdiction.

The order, it stated, placing their names on the ECL was “violative of Articles 15 and 25 of the Constitution”.

The petitioners requested the SC to restrain NAB officials from harassing Murtaza or misusing their discretionary powers.

It also requested the court to allow Murtaza to freely travel to Pakistan.

Interestingly, a three-judge bench, led by CJP himself, took up the review petition on the same day (Thursday).

Senior lawyers Hamid Khan and Waqar Rana appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

During the hearing, the chief justice expressed concern over the language used by former CJ’s daughter in her application submitted in the Human Rights cell.

Meanwhile, the bench reversed its June 3 order for placing their names on the ECL.

The court also asked the interior ministry not to proceed in the matter relating to the execution of the red warrant in view of the apex court’s order. However, the court did not restrain NAB to proceed in this matter.

In view of the order, the NAB may proceed against the family independently.