September 19, 2002	Thursday	Rajab 11, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Sept 18: Asif Ali Zardari has tarnished the image of the Prime Minister House by indulging in corruption as he was not only a member of the parliament, but also the husband of the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.

This observation was made by the accountability court judge, Mumtaz Hussain Shah, in his detailed judgment in the Pakistan Steel Mills reference.

This was the reason the 35-page detailed judgment stated that maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment by law was imposed upon him alongwith fine.

Judge Mumtaz Hussain Shah on Thursday last had convicted Asif Ali Zardari to seven years imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs40 million.

Mr Zardari, as member of the national assembly and exploiting his clout as the husband of the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, had received the bribe money in the shape of Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificate (FEBC) and US dollars from Javed Sultan of M/s Mercury Corporation through Sajjad Hussain, the then chairman, Pakistan Steel Mills, in September 1995, under cancellation threat of $22 million contract signed between M/s Mercury Corporation and steel mills.

The contract was signed for the supply and installation of 1X130 tons converter at the steel mills.

The judge observed that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge against Asif Ali Zardari under section 3(1d) of the Ehtesab Act 1997 beyond any doubt and the charge to this extent succeeded.

While dealing with the plea of alibi by Mr Zardari to establish that he was not present in the Prime Minister House on the day Sajjad Hussain came to meet Mr Zardari at the PM House to hand over the bribe money, the defence had produced three witnesses, Dr Atta Mohammad, Inayat Ali Rind and Rukhsana Bangash.

While dealing with their witnesses, the judge observed that during cross examination, Dr Atta admitted that when he had joined the PM house, he had no property, but when he left it, he had a car and a plot in Islamabad which was allotted by the government.

This shows that he was a beneficiary of Benazir Bhutto government, hence he was an interested witness. Moreover, he also had conceded that he could not identify Sajjad Hussain as he had never met him.

About Inayat Ali Rind, the judge observed that the witness was the member of District Development Board, headed by Mr Zardari and that Hakim Ali Zardari was also a member of the board.

“This reveals his association with Mr Zardari making him an interested witness and therefore his evidence is liable to be ruled out of consideration,” he observed.

The judge also held the testimony of Rukhsana Bangash, unworthy of any credit as she was also an interested party because of her deep association with the Bhutto family.

The factum of the visit of Sajjad Hussain to the PM House derives strength, the verdict says, from the testimony of prosecution witness Saqlain Hussain Shah, the inspector of police PM House Islamabad, who produced the original diary of September 4, 1995 alongwith a letter pertaining to the entry at the main gate of the PM House, Islamabad.

The judge observed that the allegations of travelling of Sajjad Hussain and Javed Sultan to Islamabad on September 14 also derived support from the evidence of prosecution witness Syed Wasifuddin, who had stated that he had given the attested photocopy of flight coupons and travel certificates of Sajjad Hussain and Javed Sultan to Feroze Shah, the investigating officer.

The documents proved that Sajjad Hussain on September 14 had travelled to Islamabad from Karachi on PK-300 and Javed Sultan travelled from Karachi to Islamabad on the same date through PK- 308 and returned the same day on PK-309.

The judge also cited the evidence of prosecution witness Commander Misbahul Islam, the ADC to the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Mr Islam had stated that Sajjad Hussain had requested him to inform the VIP lounge at Islamabad Airport for getting his boarding card out for the flight, probably chartered for Karachi. He in return had informed the protocol officer VIP Lounge Islamabad Airport to get his boarding card out.

The judge declared the statement of Sajjad Hussain a very important piece of evidence within the meaning of Article 46 of Qanun-i-Shahadat and therefore could not be discarded.

Sajjad Hussain under the statement had clearly stated before a magistrate that he had participated in the crime and had retained an amount of Rs3.7 million.

The judge also observed that since Article 46 of the Constitution did not require the statement of approver to be recorded in the presence of the accused or to afford him an opportunity of cross-examination. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the validity and legality of the statement of Sajjad Hussain as approver in this case, the judge observed.