PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Thursday stopped National Accountability Bureau from arresting directors of a Chinese company, which was part of a joint venture awarded contract of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, in an ongoing investigation into alleged irregularities in the project.

A bench consisting of Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Wiqar Ahmad ordered that the directors of the company, M/S SGEC (Sichuan Geological Engineering Complex) should join the investigation by the NAB.

The bench issued the order after preliminary hearing of a petition filed by M/S SGEC challenging the inquiry started by the bureau regarding the project, which was completed last year and converted into investigation.

The bench adjourned hearing of the matter to June 25.

Petitioners say NAB has no mandate to inquire into the matter

The bench was hearing three almost identical petitions filed by the Chinese company as well as two other companies, which were part of a joint venture executing the BRT project.

The two other petitions were filed last year – one by a director of Maqbool Associates, Masood Shah, and other one jointly filed by Ch A Latif and Sons (Pvt) Limited (Calsons) through its director Ch. Imran Latif and another director Amir Latif.

Last year the bench had stopped the bureau in different hearings from arresting the said directors, but had allowed it to continue the investigation.

These petitioners have requested the court to declare that NAB had no authority or mandate to inquire/investigate in the matter of BRT project and to cause undue harassment to the petitioners.

They also prayed to declare as illegal the proceedings initiated by NAB including an inquiry conducted by it whose report was finalised on March 13, 2023, and subsequent call up notices were issued to the petitioners from time-to-time.

Advocate Naeem Bukhari appeared for the Chinese company, Shumail Ahmad Butt for Calsons and Barrister Waseem Sajjad and Abdul Munim for Maqbool Associates.

NAB was represented by its deputy prosecutor general Azeem Dad and additional deputy prosecutor general Mohammad Ali.

Naeem Bukhari contended that his client was a Chinese company and was a partner in the JV, which was awarded the contract of the BRT project.

He stated that NAB had issued a call-up notice to representatives of the company directing them to appear before a combined investigation team (CIT).

He argued that NAB should have approached the company through the ministry of foreign affairs. However, he added that the bureau had directly issued the said notice to the Chinese embassy in Pakistan for delivering it to the company.

He recalled that the project was initially challenged in Peshawar High Court, which had declared it in accordance with law and had ruled that it could not look into its technical aspects.

Mr Bukhari argued that the project had already been completed and the bureau had no authority to re-open the matter.

He contended that the project had earned international fame due to its success.

The NAB representatives stated that the Chinese company was initially having two per cent share in the JV. They said for the purpose of investigation it was necessary to issue notice to them.

Shumail Butt argued that the BRT project had bagged four international awards.

He said whenever there was any issue of alleged irregularities in the project NAB instead of laying hands on any politician or government functionary started harassing the contractors.

He argued that earlier PHC and Supreme Court had decided cases in favour of the project and petitioners, but still the bureau had been trying to implicate the petitioners in the matter.

He also pointed out that recently the Asian Development Bank in a communication with the provincial government had stated that all the codal formalities were fulfilled in this project.

During course of hearing Justice Ijaz Anwar observed that the project was started in 2017, but the bureau remained silent at that time.

NAB’s representative Mohammad Ali stated that under section 9-B of National Accountability Ordinance the petitioners should first approach the accountability court for redressal of any of their grievance.

The bench while adjourning hearing into the matter extended the interim relief granted to the petitioner by asking NAB not to arrest them till further order.

Published in Dawn, May 3rd, 2024