NAB gets last chance to reopen Swiss cases

The News International - ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday left the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman high and dry with a 48-hour deadline to “report progress” on the implementation of its orders to reopen Swiss cases, leaving no ambiguity about the court meaning business on the execution of the December 16 judgment.

“And if this does not happen, we shall be asking you on a daily basis,” a sombre toned Chief Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar told an ashen faced Naveed Ahsan, who appeared to be ruing the day he accepted the top job of NAB chairman. The court took strong exception to NAB’s failure to fully implement its orders, pertaining to reopening of the Swiss cases.

The day got off to a bad start for the NAB chairman, who first failed to turn up despite being on notice for another case between Bankers City and NAB which, too, has become rather high profile owing to the involved matter of the mass sacking of prosecutors, which resultantly brought NAB prosecutions to a near dead pace. The bench, which was already not in a happy mood over some questionable statements made by NAB in the case in question, immediately ordered the NAB chairman to join the proceedings and once he did, the issue of his dragging his feet over the implementation of court’s orders on Swiss cases reopening also cropped up.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry inquired the NAB chairman as to why he had failed to reopen the Swiss cases and had not intimated the Swiss government in the matter. The NAB chairman informed the court that he was taking guidance from the law secretary while dealing with the Swiss cases issue. Upon hearing this, the chief justice curtly told the NAB chairman that there was no need for taking guidance of any sort as the apex court had clearly ordered to initiate the process in the Swiss cases and NAB was bound to implement the court’s orders in letter and spirit. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry admonished the NAB chairman for not reopening the Swiss cases and held him responsible for the non-implementation of the SC December 16 verdict.

“The court knows very well how to implement its decisions,” the chief justice remarked. Later, the court also ruled that amongst other actions, the salary of the NAB chairman, too, would be frozen in the event of desired progress not shown by him. Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry pointedly observed that the court had the powers to implement its decisions.

The three-member bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Ahmed and Justice Ghulam Rabbani issued orders on pleas filed by Bankers City Chairman Syed Rahat Mehmud, Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Farooq Ansari against NAB, and ordered the NAB chairman to submit his report.

Meanwhile, the bench in its formal order ruled that after passing order in judgment dated 16th December, 2009 in the case of Dr Mubashir Hassan Vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 1) appearance of the representatives/prosecutors on behalf of NAB in different cases has become irregular, except in a few cases wherein one of the prosecutors is appearing regularly and during the hearing of this case.

“We have noticed that despite allowing sufficient time to NAB no progress has been made and Sultan Mansoor, Acting Prosecutor General, who appeared, also could not answer satisfactory as to why the matter was not settled so far. “Therefore, we have summoned the NAB chairman in the court and asked him as to why, in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Dr Mubashir Hassan (ibid) the Prosecutor-General and Additional Prosecutor-General, have not been removed, so the new incumbent may take the charge for effective prosecution of cases and appear before this court as well as other courts, says the order.

He states he was under the impression that all this was to be done by the attorney-general or by the law ministry. It is pointed out to him that action was to be initiated from his office and he would perform his duty in respect of action, which was required to be taken in the light of the judgment of 17 members bench, the order said.

The NAB chairman requested time be given to him so he might start performing his part of obligation from today onward. The court ruled if no action relevant to his performance was taken by him, the coercive measures including attachment of his salary would be taken and directions would be made that no one on behalf of the NAB should appear unless the compliance of the judgment with regard to the Prosecutor General and Additional Prosecutor General was made.

“However, we give him a chance on his assurance that all necessary steps shall be taken in this regard. He is directed to appear on the next date of hearing and submit progress report in respect of the observations made in the case of Dr Mubashir Hassan,” the court ruled.

The bench heard the petitions of Syed Rahat Mehmud, 1348, Muhammad Akhtar, and 1406 (Muhammad Farooq Ansari) of 2009 and HRC 1827-P& 12388/09 Versus NAB through its Chairman and others. Syed Rahat Mehmud (petitioner) in CP 1049/09, Mr Amin K Jan, ASC with petitioner Muhammad Akhtar in CP1348/09, Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, ASC with petitioner M Farooq Ansari in CP 1406/09, Shah Khawar, DAG, Respondents, Mr Sultan Mansoor Chaudhry, Acting PG NAB, Dr Asghar Rana, ADPG, NAB, Naveed Ahsan, Chairman NAB, Col (retd) Tariq Mehmud Bhatti, I/O and Bashir Awan for RDA appeared before the court

Despite clear directions no progress has been made in satisfying the claims except that according to Tariq Mehmud Bhatti I/O, NAB he has registered claims of about 11000 people from whom amount was taken by Syed Rahat Mehmud. In this regard, a report has also been submitted by the NAB.

Malik Bashir Awan appeared on behalf of RDA to whom notice was given in view of the statement of Syed Rahat Mehmud. He is interested in purchasing the property owned by the accused. Learned counsel states that the claim so put forward by the accused is not correct as in the Adiala village, where the RDA intends to acquire the land for the purpose of building a city, he had only a small portion of land i.e. 2 kanals. In this regard, Syed Rahat Mehmud has offered flimsy explanation, which exfacie, is not relevant for the disposal of the claims of the claimants because he along with other co-accused persons are responsible to satisfy their claims. He has, however, requested that if two weeks’ time was given to him, he would be in a position to come out with a positive result. At his request, case is adjourned to 12.3.2010.