ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Wednesday pleaded that the Supreme Court review, recall and expunge certain strong observations made by the court from its July 20 verdict in the Paragon City corruption case.

The petition was filed on behalf of NAB chairman Javed Iqbal as well as NAB Lahore’s director general seeking review of the judgment in which the court had held that NAB’s conduct in dealing with the Paragon case reflected a clear manifestation of utter disregard of law, fair play, equity and propriety.

“The present case is a classic example of trampling of fundamental rights, unlawful deprivation of freedom and liberty and complete disregard for human dignity as guaranteed by the Constitution of the country,” Justice Maqbool Baqar of the SC had observed in his 87-page verdict.

The court had made the observations against NAB while announcing the verdict and granting bail to former Railways minister and PML-N leader Khawaja Saad Rafique and his brother Khawaja Suleman Rafiq on March 17, 2020, after they deposited surety bonds of Rs3 million each in the Paragon City corruption case.

Review petition filed in SC by NAB chief, bureau’s Lahore office DG

In the review petition, NAB has pleaded in the SC that the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, was a special statute and thus every provision incorporated in the law has to be construed strictly.

Statutes are normally interpreted on principles of plain reading of the language and in accordance with the rule it was clear and unambiguous that offences committed under the NAO, as incorporated in section 9, were non-bailable, but the SC through different judgments had determined that this law was subject to judicial scrutiny.

Therefore, the parameters set in Article 199 of the Constitution were permitted to be resorted to, but only in compelling circumstances and upon clearly spelt reasons, the petition argued.

It further said that the bail was an extraordinary remedy in non-bailable cases and could be granted under compelling circumstances as highlighted in different judgments of the SC.

As long as NAB’s statute existed and the powers of arrest remained in it, the arrest by NAB was completely legal, the petition argued. It assured the court that NAB always exercised these powers in accordance with the parameters as settled by the SC in the 2019 Talat Ishaque case.

Thus the arrest is not “zulm” (injustice) because it was made in accordance with the law and powers granted in NAO, the petition claimed and requested the SC expunge paragraphs 18 to 48 and 56 to 70 from the judgment as they run counter to the precedents highlighted.

The petition argued that some of the observations rendered by the SC in the judgment would be adjudicated by the trial court, but it would be impossible for the trial court to disregard the reasoning given by the court.

The petition further contended that the question of fairness, proportionality, reasonableness and necessity as observed in paragraph 71 of the SC judgment under review had a direct bearing on the merits of the case and the ambit of fairness was dependent on the incriminating material collected by investigators which was scrutinised by the court of competent jurisdiction at the time of the framing of the charge.

The petition claimed that NAB, while conducting inquiry or investigation, adhered to the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution and always applied principles entailed in the criminal law pertaining to white collar and financial crimes, inclusive of money laundering as defined in the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010.

However, it said, the principles of burden of proof and standard of proof to be established was different in white collar and financial crimes from the general application of the penal code as well as that of Qanun-i-Shahdat Order 1984.

Published in Dawn, August 13th, 2020