• Top NAB lawyer claims delay was caused because Zardari first absconded and then took benefit of NRO and presidential immunity

• PPP accuses anti-graft watchdog of having different policies in Punjab and Sindh

ISLAMABAD: The National Accounta­bility Bureau (NAB) challenged on Saturday acquittal of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari in the last reference related to his alleged illegal assets in Pakistan and abroad.

The appeal has been filed in the Rawal­pindi bench of the Lahore High Court by NAB prosecutor general Waqas Qadeer Dar.

Lashing out at the Bureau, the PPP alleged that the anti-graft watchdog had different policies and strategies in dealing the corruption cases in Punjab and Sindh.

According to the NAB appeal, the former president owned 25 offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Florida, Geneva with the cash flows from various accounts to and from the UAE, Switzerland, France, the UK and the US.

The appeal stated that in the 90s the value of Mr Zardari’s 37 properties in Pakistan was over Rs22 billion while he allegedly owned foreign assets worth $1.5bn. Ironically, the appeal disclosed that the former president paid Rs5,794 in 1992 and Rs17,000 in 1998 as tax.

The accountability judge of Rawalpindi, Khalid Mehmood Ranjha, last month acq­uitted Mr Zardari in the assets reference.

Challenging the verdict, the appeal stated that “after framing of charges… as many as 40 witnesses [were] produced by the prosecution in support of its version”.

It said that the trial court on Feb 2, 2006, declared Mr Zardari a proclaimed offender since he had absconded. After promulgation of the National Reconciliation Order (NRO) on March 5, 2008, the Bureau had withdrawn the case against him. The case was revived after the Supreme Court declared the NRO void ab initio on Dec 16, 2009.

Since Mr Zardari was enjoying immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution, the matter became dormant and was reopened on the request of NAB on April 17, 2015.

Star prosecution witness

NAB admitted that “a star prosecution witness Ahmed Jawad Mirza did not turn up after recording his examination in chief”, but still, the “accountability court had sufficient material, which has been ignored”.

Mr Mirza was a legal consultant for NAB’s Financial Crime Investigation Wing and, in 2002, presented volumes of documentary evidence to the investigation officer in the reference against the former president.

The evidence included documents related to transactions, including bank accounts and offshore companies owned by Asif Ali Zardari and members of his family.

The appeal, however, said that after recording of 41 witnesses, the accused (Mr Zardari) filed an application under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for his acquittal which was accepted by the accountability court on Aug 26, 2017.

NAB’s appeal contended that the trial court acquitted the accused in violation of the provisions of Section 265-K of the CrPC as the application for the acquittal was moved at a time “when the trial of the accused was almost near to end”.

Regarding change of stance of some prosecution witnesses, the appeal maintained that “the minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses ought to have been ignored as due to afflux of time, occurrence of such discrepancies was quite natural. It is not a secret that the accused left no stone unturned to delay the trial.”

According to the appeal, the prosecution was not responsible for delay in the trial proceedings as it was because Mr Zardari first absconded, then took benefit of the NRO and lastly due to the presidential immunity he could not be tried in the accountability court.

Defending the prosecution evidence, the appeal contended that the trial court discarded most of the evidence “on the assumption that the seizure memos are photocopies of the original. While doing so, the learned court miserably failed to take into the account that when the author of the seizure memos and the attesting witnesses of the same appeared before the court acknowledged their signatures… then there stands no reason to discredit the same”.

“The most devastating aspect of the case is that the learned court, in an unprecedented manner, did not allow the prosecution to bring on record the most essential, convincing and reliable documentary evidence obtained from foreign countries,” the appeal claimed.

It alleged that the accountability court did not allow the prosecution “to exhibit 225 documents which were the banking record of foreign counties and received from Geneva. These documents were attested copies and bear the stamps of the Embassy of Pakistan”.

It further claimed, “this was important and authenticated record requisitioned from foreign countries through Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) but the same was not allowed to be placed on record…thus deprived the prosecution from proving the its case.”

The appeal pointed out that NAB had the certified documents to prove the beneficial ownership of Mr Zardari of three London properties, including Surrey Palace. Since the witness Jawad Mirza did not turn up, the court could use this evidence, but it did not summon that record.

NAB requested the LHC to set aside the order for the acquittal of Mr Zardari and remand the case to the accountability court for retrial.

PPP unhappy

Addressing a news conference soon after the filing of NAB’s appeal, former adviser to the Sindh chief minister Saeed Ghani said that NAB’s attitude towards politicians and bureaucrats in Sindh was “clearly discriminatory”.

Mr Ghani said that NAB had arrested a number of politicians and bureaucrats in Sindh on charges of corruption even without holding preliminary inquiries whereas in Punjab, it did not arrest the persons even after completion of the investigations. He said NAB treated the cases of the PPP and the PML-N with discrimination.

“They (NAB officials) are aggressive against the PPP,” he added.

He said it was perhaps due to the pressure from the Supreme Court that NAB was now taking action against the Sharif family. He, however, regretted that NAB had neither issued arrest orders nor put the names of any Sharif family member on the exit control list (ECL) despite completion of inquiry against them. On the other hand, he alleged that NAB arrested the PPP people without any notice and merely on charges and a large number of politicians and bureaucrats in Sindh had to seek bail from the courts to avoid arrests.

Mr Ghani termed NAB’s action of filing the appeal against Mr Zardari’s acquittal “illogical and uncalled for”. He said Mr Zardari had already spent 11 years in jail without any conviction from the court. He said supposedly if the NAB cases against Mr Zardari were considered to be true, even then he had spent more time in jail than the sentences which he could have got from the courts. He expressed the hope that like in the past, NAB would again fail in finding anything against the PPP co-chairman.

In reply to a question, the PPP leader said that he had heard Opposition Leader Khursheed Shah saying that he had committed a mistake by agreeing on the name of the present NAB chairman at the time of his appointment.

Responding to a question over the controversy on the issue of the appointment of Sindh Inspector General of Police, Mr Ghani criticised the courts for interfering in the matter. He said there was a time when the Sindh government wanted to appoint Ghulam Haider Jamali as IGP, but the court ordered his removal and now when the provincial government wanted to remove IG A.D. Khowaja, the court was directing it to retain him on the post.

“It is not the job of the courts to appoint or remove IGPs,” he said, adding that such decisions could affect governance and democracy.

Mr Ghani said it seemed there was no need for a home ministry in Sindh as the IGP had become more powerful than the chief minister.

Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2017