ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Tuesday adjourned a National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) plea challenging the Lahore High Court’s three-year old verdict regarding closing of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case till Wednesday.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mushir Alam comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Mazhar Alam Miankhel conducted third hearing of the case.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Isa asked Deputy Prosecutor NAB Imranul Haq about the charges against the suspects in the case.
The court asked as to where the Hudaibiya Papers Mills case was mentioned in the July 28 Panama Papers case judgment. The NAB prosecutor replied that the apex court in the judgment had directed filing of fresh references if new evidence surfaced as the Hudaibiya Papers case also was linked to the Panama Papers.
The court asked the prosecutor as to which criminal act had been committed by the Sharif family. Whether any corruption had been done in the Hudaibiya Papers Mills case, which was prima facie related to income tax.
The NAB prosecutor apprised the court that Ishaq Dar in his confessional statement under Section164 had admitted his role in laundering money to the tune of $14.86 million on behalf of the Sharifs through fictitious accounts.
Justice Masir Alam asked under what law anyone’s confessional statement could be used against other accused, Dar’s statement should be recorded in the presence of NAB chairman or before the court, he added.
Justice Qazi Faez asked the counsel that whether he had any other evidence than Dar’s confessional statement, NAB would have to produce complete money trail to establish its case, he added.
Justice Mashir Alam questioned delay in filing of the appeal, on which the deputy prosecutor replied that the joint investigation team (JIT) in its report report had recommended to re-open Hudaibiya case as some new facts were revealed with some money trail.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa told him that the JIT just gave its opinion, NAB had to establish its case as to where criminality was committed.
Prosecutor Imranul Haq informed the bench of the names of fake account holders, to which Justice Isa remarked that having fake accounts did not prove any criminal act. The same facts were present in 2000.
Justice Isa said NAB had not fulfilled legal formalities in the case. The court was not in a hurry and the counsel should plead the case on the basis of evidence, which were present before and after the formation of JIT, he added.
He also remarked that the apex court could not rely on statements and needed solid evidence.
