The Supreme Court censured the Anti Narcotics Force (ANF) on Tuesday for arresting Ali Musa Gilani, son of former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani, at the doorstep of the apex court’s building and said it deprived the aggrieved person access to justice.
In its detailed judgment in the ephedrine case, the court while confirming the bails of Ali Musa and Makhdoom Shahabuddin, observed that ANF’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Shahabuddin on the same day he was to submit nomination papers for premiership could not be a mere coincidence. The detailed judgment was released on Tuesday.
Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Tariq Pervez and Justice Amir Hani Muslim were the members of the bench hearing the case. In its verdict, the apex court strongly objected to the conduct of ANF in the case.
The court also observed that there was an ongoing controversy between the ANF director general and the government regarding the jurisdiction to investigate the case.
Addressing the question of mala fide, the court took notice of the fact that the petitioners’ (Ali Musa and Shahabuddin) arrest warrants were issued by the ANF on June 2 – long before statements from approvers Rasheed Jumma and Rizwan Ahmad Khan, are the only evidence against the petitioners.
According to the court order, the ANF prosecutor submitted that the anti narcotics force’s intervention reflects that the petitioners used their influence in procuring an exorbitant quota for ephedrine as well as its conversion for local use. “The prosecutor further said that the investigation shows that ephedrine was smuggled perhaps to be used in manufacturing narcotics,” the order says.
The court also observed that Jumma’s bail application was adjourned 22 times at the request of ANF.
The order also stated that since Jumma had admittedly assigned the ephedrine quota, officially, he was the main figure in the whole episode. It added that according to the approvers’ statements, they had never met with the petitioners themselves. Interestingly, the court said, Dr Jumma appeared to be the principal accused but would ultimately escape any criminal liability and had never been detained in the case.
The court also left the option to detain the approver to the trial court.
The order concluded that there did not appear to be any evidence at this point which indicates that Shahabuddin or Ali Musa made any financial gains from the transactions in question. It added that bail could not be denied to the petitioners as further inquiries were required.
The main evidence against the two petitioners is the statements of the approvers, who had a motive to implicate the petitioners in consideration of their being let off the hook, the order said.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th, 2012.
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