IHC takes up appeal against Awan’s acquittal on 5th

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is going to take up tomorrow [Monday] the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) appeal against an accountability court’s decision to acquit Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affair Dr Babar Awan in Nandipur power project case.

In its appeal filed on July 4, the country’s top anti-corruption authority contended that an accountability court acquitted the PM’s aide without giving NAB an opportunity to present evidence and even before conclusion of the trial. It said the trial court’s order is unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.

Islamabad Accountability Court-II former judge Arshad Malik on June 25, 2019 acquitted Dr Awan and former secretary law Justice (retd) Riaz Kiyani in the Nandipur power plant corruption reference.

The court had, however, dismissed the acquittal plea of former prime minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Riaz Mehmood, and Shumaila Mehmood. Interestingly, judge Arshad Malik, who also convicted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, was sacked in July 2020 in the wake of a video scandal.

Dr Babar Awan, who was the law minister during the last PPP’s government, was accused of delaying his opinion on a summary of the Ministry of Water and Power on the power project – a delay which, NAB had claimed, caused a loss of over Rs27 billion to the national exchequer.

Dr Awan had contended that the Ministry of Water and Power had never sent any summary of the Nandipur power project after he assumed the charge of law ministry and that the summary had been sent during the tenure of his predecessors.

The $329 million Nandipur power project was approved by the Economic Coordination Committee in December 2007. Subsequently, a contract was signed on January 28, 2008 between the Northern Power Generation Company Limited and the Dong Fang Electric Corporation, China.

Two consortiums — Coface for 68.967m euros and Sinosure for $150.151m — were set up for financing the project. The Water and Power Ministry sought legal opinion from the Law Ministry in accordance with the schedule of the agreement in July 2009, which didn’t come through despite reminders.

The matter remained pending as the ministry failed to take any concrete steps to resolve the matter. This escalated the cost of the project.