Tuesday, 21 July, 2020 I 29 Dhū al-Qa‘dah, 1441 I Rs 15.00 I Vol XI No 23 I 12 Pages I Lahore Edition
NAB lAw BeINg used to ‘Arm-twIst, pressurIse’ polItIcAl oppoNeNts, sc rules g
87-PAGE RUlING SAyS ACCOUNTABIlITy lAwS USEd FOR SPlINTERING, FRACTURING POlITICAl PARTIES ISLAMABAD
I
staff report
N a scathing judgement on Monday, the Supreme Court (SC) criticised the accountability laws of the country, saying these laws were being used as a tool to ‘arm-twist and pressurise’ political opponents into submission and ‘fracturing political parties’. The remarks were made in a case pertaining to the bail application of Pakistan Muslim leagueNawaz (PMl-N) lawmaker Khawaja Saad Rafique and his brother Khawaja Salman Rafique against his arrest by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in
g
ORdER SAyS ‘PyGMIES SElECTEd, NURTUREd, PROMOTEd, ANd BROUGHT TO PROMINENCE ANd POwER’
the Paragon Housing Society corruption reference. In the detailed 87-page ruling, penned by Justice Maqbool Baqar, the court highlighted the definition and purpose of bail as well as due process in criminal cases. “In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trail by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. “The courts owe more than verbal respect to
Justice Isa seeks review of SC verdict, challenges FBR proceedings ISLAMABAD staff report
Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Monday move a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) seeking a review of its June 19 order requiring the verification of three offshore properties in his wife and children’s name by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). Filed through Advocate Munir A. Malik, the petition argued that the SC’s short order had “material errors of facts and jurisdiction”. It added that many of these were in respect to matters with regard to which neither Justice Isa nor his family were heard. It also contended that the FBR had initiated proceedings against Justice Isa and his family members without waiting for the top court’s detailed order. The majority order by seven judges had quashed the presidential reference against Justice Isa but ordered the FBR chairman to furnish a report under his signatures to the secretary of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), containing details of the proceedings conducted by the commissioner inland revenue after seeking an explanation from the wife and children of Justice Isa about the nature and source of the funds used to purchase three properties in the United Kingdom. On the receipt of the report, the SJC will determine whether
to initiate any action/proceedings for the purposes of Article 209 of the Constitution, in its suo motu jurisdiction, the judgement had explained. “After the reference against the petitioner was quashed, there was no justification to direct initiation of FBR proceedings against his wife and children, give guidance and free licence to the acts of an executive which had admittedly acted unlawfully against the petitioner.” The petition also stated that subsequent to the passing of the order, the FBR chairman was “unlawfully” changed, referring to the posting of Muhammad Javed Ghani — the fourth appointment made to the position
since the ruling PTI took office. “The only reason to act in this manner is to get the desired results from the FBR, which further demonstrates extreme malice.” The petition also criticised the FBR’s move to paste notices outside Justice Isa’s residence when an arrest warrant had not been issued and the petitioner had not been declared an absconder. “The only object that this novelty served was to ridicule and humiliate the petitioner and his wife further and before every staff and resident of the Judge’s Enclave.” It added that the contesting respondents had apparently prevailed upon the FBR to proceed against Justice Isa’s family without waiting for the detailed reasons of the “impugned order” to be issued. “The objective thereof appears to be to make the constitutional right of review redundant.” The petition contended that Justice Isa had filed the petition as the time limit for doing so was expiring, even though the detailed order had not been released. “However, the petitioner reserves his rights to submit further, additional and other grounds once the detailed reasons are issued.” The petition urged the apex court to review and “excise” its directives and to stop action on the court’s directives till the review petition is decided.
more inside
Opp decides to hold APC after Eid to discuss anti-govt campaign STORY ON PAGE 02
IHC asks govt to respond to plea challenging PM’s advisers having dual nationality STORY ON PAGE 03
Gold price surges to record Rs111,250 per tola STORY ON PAGE 09
Two coronavirus vaccines ‘produce immune response’ STORY ON BACK PAGE
g
SAyS NAB FAIlEd TO PROvE CORRUPTION CHARGES AGAINST SAAd RAFIQUE ANd HIS BROTHER SAlMAN RAFIQUE
the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. “From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. “In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been
convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. “Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson,” the ruling read.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 05