ISLAMABAD: With little progress on Thursday, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the Asghar Khan petition until May 17, DawnNews reported.

Tehrik-i-Istiqlal chief Air Martial (retd) Asghar Khan had filed a petition in the apex court in 1996, requesting it to look into allegations of the Inter-Services Intelligence’s financing of politicians in the 1990 general elections to limit the victory of Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party. After only a few hearings, the case had been postponed indefinitely.

The court had picked up the case again earlier this year and a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is hearing the case after almost 16 years of the original petition.

However, only a two-judge bench, comprising the chief justice and Justice Tariq Parvez heard the case today.

The chief justice on Thursday said that the response filed by Gen. (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg had clarified several facts pertaining to the case. Former army chief Beg had moved an application in the Supreme Court the previous day claiming that he had not been involved in any manner in the alleged disbursement of donations among politicians on the orders of then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Beg blamed the then director general of ISI Asad Durrani who he said had knowledge of the accounts.

Beg’s application was filed in response to an observation made by the apex court in its April 25 order.

The court had asked Advocate Akram Sheikh, the counsel for Beg, to furnish details of accounts allegedly used to finance politicians during the 1990 election.

Salman Raja, counsel for the petitioner, informed the court today that he had acquired a copy of the Mehran Bank probe reports through a journalist. However, the chief justice said that the reports need to be officially verified.

Previously, the court was told that inquiry reports by two commissions believed to be insightful and revealing about the scams were still missing from official record. The attorney-general informed the court again today that he had not yet received the commissions’ reports.

The court subsequently adjourned the hearing due to an incomplete bench.