Graft convicts can’t escape fine even in death: CJP
Top judge’s stance on corruption even tougher than that of his predecessor
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
Taking an even harsher stance when it comes to corruption cases, the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa has ruled that a convict’s 10-year disqualification from holding a public office would only start after they had paid the fine imposed on them apart from serving their jail time.
In a recent judgement, the chief justice made it clear that under Section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, the 10-year disqualification of a corruption case convict would commence from the date on which they had completed their prison term as well as paid their fine.
During the hearing of a case, Justice Khosa held that the money amassed through corruption would have to be returned even if a convict died. After their death, the money will be recovered from their heirs.
In another verdict, he declared that the imprisonment imposed if a convict defaulted in paying fine was not a substitute in NAB cases.
"A sentence of imprisonment over default in payment of fine is not a substitute for the payment of fine but as a matter of fact, the said sentence of imprisonment is a punishment for non-payment,” he noted.
“It had also been made clear by this court in case even if the sentence of imprisonment over default in payment of fine is undergone by a convict, the amount of fine is still to be recovered from him,” the verdict read.
Last year, the CJP delivered a judgement on granting bail to a suspect in a NAB case. He observed that the constitutional jurisdiction of a high court to grant bail in NAB cases was an extraordinary one and it had to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances only and not in run-of-the mill cases.
Likewise, his views are also strict about granting pre-arrest bail in criminal cases.
In the Avenfield case, CJP Khosa issued strict guidelines regarding the suspension of a convict’s sentence and granting of bail.
The top judge also expressed his views on how to deal with matters related to corruption. In his 192-page minority judgement in the Panamagate case, he observed that corruption at high places was not a new phenomenon but the methods of corruption and concealing the proceeds of corruption had seen a dramatic change in recent times.
Citing cases adjudicated by international tribunals, the CJP noted that the standard of proof in relation to corruption and corrupt practices was “balance of probabilities” (allowing inferences from circumstantial evidence) and not “beyond reasonable doubt”.
However, former Supreme Court Bar Association president Rasheed A Rizvi strongly disagrees with jurisprudence evolved through the CJP’s verdicts.
He wondered as to how the heirs could pay the fine after the death of a convict. Rizvi also said the high court's jurisdiction to grant bail had been curtailed and the NAB chairman had been given unlimited power to arrest anyone.
Likewise, senior lawyers say it seems the judiciary and executive are on same page to deal corruption in the country. The superior judiciary did not even raise any objections over the arrest of political leaders by the NAB.
Senior lawyers are also urging the Supreme Court to examine Section 24-d of the NAO which empowered the NAB chairman to arrest any person during investigation and aggrieved parties had no forum to redress their grievances.
Opposition parties are also complaining that Section 24-d of NAO was being misused and opposition leaders were behind bar before conviction and the judiciary was completely silent over the matter.
A senior lawyer believes that credibility deficit and depolarisation was the biggest challenge faced by the incumbent judiciary. "Right now the judiciary is seen in one camp. It should be bipartisan instead," he added.
Taking an even harsher stance when it comes to corruption cases, the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa has ruled that a convict’s 10-year disqualification from holding a public office would only start after they had paid the fine imposed on them apart from serving their jail time.
In a recent judgement, the chief justice made it clear that under Section 15(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, the 10-year disqualification of a corruption case convict would commence from the date on which they had completed their prison term as well as paid their fine.
During the hearing of a case, Justice Khosa held that the money amassed through corruption would have to be returned even if a convict died. After their death, the money will be recovered from their heirs.
In another verdict, he declared that the imprisonment imposed if a convict defaulted in paying fine was not a substitute in NAB cases.
"A sentence of imprisonment over default in payment of fine is not a substitute for the payment of fine but as a matter of fact, the said sentence of imprisonment is a punishment for non-payment,” he noted.
“It had also been made clear by this court in case even if the sentence of imprisonment over default in payment of fine is undergone by a convict, the amount of fine is still to be recovered from him,” the verdict read.
Last year, the CJP delivered a judgement on granting bail to a suspect in a NAB case. He observed that the constitutional jurisdiction of a high court to grant bail in NAB cases was an extraordinary one and it had to be exercised in extraordinary circumstances only and not in run-of-the mill cases.
Likewise, his views are also strict about granting pre-arrest bail in criminal cases.
In the Avenfield case, CJP Khosa issued strict guidelines regarding the suspension of a convict’s sentence and granting of bail.
The top judge also expressed his views on how to deal with matters related to corruption. In his 192-page minority judgement in the Panamagate case, he observed that corruption at high places was not a new phenomenon but the methods of corruption and concealing the proceeds of corruption had seen a dramatic change in recent times.
Citing cases adjudicated by international tribunals, the CJP noted that the standard of proof in relation to corruption and corrupt practices was “balance of probabilities” (allowing inferences from circumstantial evidence) and not “beyond reasonable doubt”.
However, former Supreme Court Bar Association president Rasheed A Rizvi strongly disagrees with jurisprudence evolved through the CJP’s verdicts.
He wondered as to how the heirs could pay the fine after the death of a convict. Rizvi also said the high court's jurisdiction to grant bail had been curtailed and the NAB chairman had been given unlimited power to arrest anyone.
Likewise, senior lawyers say it seems the judiciary and executive are on same page to deal corruption in the country. The superior judiciary did not even raise any objections over the arrest of political leaders by the NAB.
Senior lawyers are also urging the Supreme Court to examine Section 24-d of the NAO which empowered the NAB chairman to arrest any person during investigation and aggrieved parties had no forum to redress their grievances.
Opposition parties are also complaining that Section 24-d of NAO was being misused and opposition leaders were behind bar before conviction and the judiciary was completely silent over the matter.
A senior lawyer believes that credibility deficit and depolarisation was the biggest challenge faced by the incumbent judiciary. "Right now the judiciary is seen in one camp. It should be bipartisan instead," he added.