NAB accused seeks to become party in SC case against IHC verdict suspending Sharifs' sentences

Applicant proposes more questions for consideration by bench hearing bureau’s appeal against Sharifs

ISLAMABAD: Submitting an application to become a party in the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) case against Islamabad High Court verdict suspending the sentences of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter and son-in-law, an accused facing NAB proceedings has requested the Supreme Court’s larger bench to adjudicate a question whether the bureau may take cognisance, investigate and file reference on matters pending before the superior or trial courts.

The apex court in its November 12 order on the NAB appeals had posed 17 legal questions pertaining to jurisdiction of constitutional court in corruption cases, including matters of hardship and grant of bail. A larger bench of the top court will decide the legal questions.

However, accused Iqbal Ahmed has moved an application through Advocate Afshan Ghazanfar, proposing additional questions, which according to the application are necessary to be determined for the interest of justice and fair play.



The application stated that Ahmed was aggrieved by recent acts of NAB, which initiated inquiries and finally filled a reference on October 26.

“Due to this act of NAB, a few more points have arisen, which need to be examined by the larger bench along with other proposed points for determination, since all points are in respect of powers of the court, laid down in statutes and their parallel constitutional jurisdiction are under the examination of this court,” the application stated.

The applicant also termed the proposed questions a legislative attempt. “This legislative attempt is to preclude judicial review through statutory provisions that purport to strip courts of their jurisdiction.”

In support of his locus standi, the applicant contended that he had pending cases before the Sindh High Court (SHC) since 1997, prior to promulgation of the NAB Ordinance 1999, but the bureau had taken up the matter related to property involved in the court proceedings.

The applicant proposed the question, for consideration of larger bench of the top court, as to whether NAB could take cognisance, investigate and file reference regarding matters already pending adjudication before the superior courts or even trial courts.

He also raised the question whether any property acquired by a person before January 1, 1985, which is the date of the NAB Ordinance 1999 to have come into force, could form the subject matter of a charge before an accountability court under the ordinance.  Since the allotment of property was made to the applicant prior to January 1, 1985, what would be the effect thereof, the applicant asked.

The application also asked “as to whether the bar contained u/s 9-8 of the NAB Ordinance 1999 is in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Constitution 1973 and Article 3,4,8,9,13 and 25 do not protect the freedom of a person…”

The applicant prayed the top court to accept the application for impleading him as an intervener in NAB’s appeals against the Sharif family members.