ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan (AG) and real estate tycoon Malik Riaz Hussain for July 24, over a review appeal of Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, son of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
However, it did not endorse a request of Iftikhar's counsel seeking a stay against National Accountability Bureau (NAB) proceeding into the matter, besides, rejecting Malik Riaz's counsel objection over the instant issue.
Zahid Bukhari, counsel for Malik Riaz, raised objection before a two-member bench of Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Khiliji Arif Hussain, saying that hearing of the review petition was fixed in haste, as he did not receive any notice in the case.
He contended that the court’s orders in the case were implemented so review petition was been moved without any grounds.
The bench asked Bukhari to submit his reply first in the case and then raise objection over the review petition.
Justice Khiliji Arif Hussain expressing his displeasure, made it clear that it was their prerogative to fix a case.
Sardar Ishaq, counsel for CJ’s son, claimed that the Attorney General had misinterpreted the court's order and referred the case to the NAB for investigation whereas the court had asked him to send the matter to relevant government machinery.
He further apprised that he had sought the attention of the AG and NAB authorities through a letter but no one had responded.
He pleaded the bench to direct the NAB to stop investigations in the case.
At this point Justice Khiliji remarked that whether the NAB was not a part of the government machinery? Justice Khawaja observed that instead of state machinery, the NAB was an independent institution whose job was to keep an eye on those government officials who had indulged in corruption.
He said the court had issued a judicial order in the case and now wanted to see whether it was carried out in true spirit.
However, the bench declared that it would examine the letter which the AG had sent to the NAB.
Further hearing was adjourned till July 24.
Dr Arsalan had moved a review petition through his counsel Sardar Ishaq on July 13 under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980.
On June 14, a two-member bench disposing of a suo motu notice case regarding allegations of the business deal, had expected that the AG would set the state machinery in motion so that all those who might have committed any illegal act, including Malik Riaz, Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, Salman Ali Khan, were pursued and brought to book with full force of the law.