Lahore High Court seeks reply from NAB on PML-Q petitions
In 2000, the national graft-buster had authorised three investigations against Chaudhry brothers
In 2000, the national graft-buster had authorised three investigations against Chaudhry brothers PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
LAHORE:
A Lahore High Court’s division bench headed by Justice Sardar Ahmed Naeem sought reply from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on different petitions filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) top leadership challenging two decades old three inquiries against them initiated by the anti-graft watchdog.
Petitioners Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, whose party is an ally of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), had challenged three inquiries of the NAB.
The petitions said that then chairman of the anti-corruption watchdog in 2000 authorised investigation against them on the allegations of misuse of authority, assets beyond means and willful default under National Accountability Ordinance 1999.
They said all the three investigations were recommended for closure by the investigating officers and regional board of the NAB during 2017 and 2018 when their political arch-rivals were in power.
The petitioners contended that establishment of NAB, its credibility and partiality and its use for political engineering had been a matter of heated debate not only by political parties but also human rights organisations and intelligentsia both at national and international level.
They noted that the order for authorisation of investigation in the year 2000 was passed in a slipshod manner on two so-called complaints, one of which was anonymous whereas the other was without address of the complainant.
They observed that both the complaints proceeded upon general, vague and bald allegations and had not been supported by any evidence worth name on record.
The petitions implored that in the absence of an iota of evidence, no material was available before the then chairman of the respondent bureau to form an opinion in terms of section 18(c) of NAO 1999 which was a sine-qua-non to pass an order for authorisation of investigation.
It was further said that the entire process for commencing or conducting an investigation in the instant matter was violative of the mandatory provisions of NAO 1999 and, consequently, all actions taken by the respondent bureau were illegal, without lawful authority and void ab initio.
“That the respondent bureau embarked upon a roving, fishing and sniffing expedition which is not permissible under the law and is violative of a number of fundamental rights such as right to be treated in accordance with law, life, liberty, dignity and equal protection of law.”
The petitioners claimed that their entire careers had been investigated into a great length over a period of last two decades yet no evidence worth name could be collected to suggest any personal gain by them at the expense of the public exchequer or abuse of public office.
The petitions stated that the allegation of money laundering was farce and frivolous and the had been levelled with the malicious intention of character assassination of the petitioners as the officials of the respondent bureau had failed to collect any evidence worth name to show that any transaction relating to the petitioners had any nexus with any crime.
The petitioners maintained that the NAB chairman had approved in 2019 reinvestigation and bifurcation of the inquiries against them after an investigation spreading over a period of 19 years since authorisation of investigation in 2000.
They asked the court to set aside the authorisation of the inquiries and the order for their bifurcation passed by the NAB chairman for being unlawful.
A Lahore High Court’s division bench headed by Justice Sardar Ahmed Naeem sought reply from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on different petitions filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) top leadership challenging two decades old three inquiries against them initiated by the anti-graft watchdog.
Petitioners Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, whose party is an ally of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), had challenged three inquiries of the NAB.
The petitions said that then chairman of the anti-corruption watchdog in 2000 authorised investigation against them on the allegations of misuse of authority, assets beyond means and willful default under National Accountability Ordinance 1999.
They said all the three investigations were recommended for closure by the investigating officers and regional board of the NAB during 2017 and 2018 when their political arch-rivals were in power.
The petitioners contended that establishment of NAB, its credibility and partiality and its use for political engineering had been a matter of heated debate not only by political parties but also human rights organisations and intelligentsia both at national and international level.
They noted that the order for authorisation of investigation in the year 2000 was passed in a slipshod manner on two so-called complaints, one of which was anonymous whereas the other was without address of the complainant.
They observed that both the complaints proceeded upon general, vague and bald allegations and had not been supported by any evidence worth name on record.
The petitions implored that in the absence of an iota of evidence, no material was available before the then chairman of the respondent bureau to form an opinion in terms of section 18(c) of NAO 1999 which was a sine-qua-non to pass an order for authorisation of investigation.
It was further said that the entire process for commencing or conducting an investigation in the instant matter was violative of the mandatory provisions of NAO 1999 and, consequently, all actions taken by the respondent bureau were illegal, without lawful authority and void ab initio.
“That the respondent bureau embarked upon a roving, fishing and sniffing expedition which is not permissible under the law and is violative of a number of fundamental rights such as right to be treated in accordance with law, life, liberty, dignity and equal protection of law.”
The petitioners claimed that their entire careers had been investigated into a great length over a period of last two decades yet no evidence worth name could be collected to suggest any personal gain by them at the expense of the public exchequer or abuse of public office.
The petitions stated that the allegation of money laundering was farce and frivolous and the had been levelled with the malicious intention of character assassination of the petitioners as the officials of the respondent bureau had failed to collect any evidence worth name to show that any transaction relating to the petitioners had any nexus with any crime.
The petitioners maintained that the NAB chairman had approved in 2019 reinvestigation and bifurcation of the inquiries against them after an investigation spreading over a period of 19 years since authorisation of investigation in 2000.
They asked the court to set aside the authorisation of the inquiries and the order for their bifurcation passed by the NAB chairman for being unlawful.