A prosecutor of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) on Saturday claimed before a district court that that he was being “politically victimised” by the new administration on account of his association with commission’s former chairman Zafar Hijazi, who was sacked amidst Panamagate scandal.
On the appeal of SECP’s special public prosecutor (SPP) Munib Cheema, Additional District and Sessions (ADSJ) Judge Abida Sajjad issued stay order restraining SECP from taking any adverse action against the appellant until the next date of hearing. While granting stay, the court also issued notices to the respondents.
The SPP through his counsel, Umer Ijaz Gilani, filed an appeal before the ADSJ against the November 6 order of civil judge Saqib Jawwad, denying application for interim injunction.
Cheema made SECP Chairman Aamir Khan and commission’s secretary Bilal Rasul respondents in the appeal.
The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) – which had probed into the offshore assets of former premier Nawaz Sharif’s family in line with the apex court’s April 20, 2017 verdict in the Panamagate case – alleged that the SECP chairman had tampered with records of the Sharif’s sugar mills.
A case was registered against Hijazi on the orders of the Supreme Court after the three-member Panama Papers case implementation bench acted on the JIT report. Later, the federal government sacked Hijazi.
In the instant case, Cheema’s counsel said that he was a foreign qualified mid-career lawyer and a Chevening fellow who was inducted into the SECP in 2016 by Hijazi and at the time, the SPP served under chairman’s direct command and was destined for a stellar career in the regulator.
However, Gilani said, with the firing of the chairman, the prosecutor’s fortunes also turned.
In the petition, the counsel maintained that the new bosses at SECP launched a campaign of harassment against all officers who were seen to be associated with Hijazi, adding amongst the officers facing harassment was Arsalan Hijazi – son of Zafar Hijazi – who was recently issued a show cause notice and whose writ petition was pending before the Islamabad High Court.
He noted that two fact-finding inquiries were initiated against Cheema in 2018 and 2019, respectively, saying he was not given a chance to defend himself and that the reports of both inquiries were kept buried for months.
However, in April 2020, Gilani informed the court that the SECP administration sprang into action against Cheema when his services were requisitioned by the Competition Commission of Pakistan.
The counsel maintained that disciplinary action was initiated against Cheema on the basis of long-buried inquiries, adding that on October 22, he was issued a show cause notice, which threatened him with major penalty of dismissal from service.
Cheema claimed that the entire proceeding against him was tainted with "malice” and the show-cause notice was blatantly “illegal” because it had been issued on the basis of an inquiry committee report which actually acquitted him.
Cheema’s counsel observed that the SECP had trampled its own rule as show-cause could not be issued to an employee who was already exonerated.
Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court, he argued that the law did not allow SECP to treat SPP in a whimsical, arbitrary and vindictive manner.
“Unless the courts intervene, a bad precedent will be set,” Gilani stated, adding “prosecutorial independence will be compromised.”
The counsel prayed that the civil judge’s order be set aside, who had refused to grant a stay order in the matter relying upon Section 38A of the SECP Act, which barred the courts from issuing ex-parte stay orders against SECP.
After admitting the petition for regular hearing, the court while granting stay until next hearing and issuing notices to respondents adjourned the case till November 13.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ