ISLAMABAD, The Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted a plea on behalf of Federation regarding implementation of its orders of Dec 16, 2009, on National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and fixed Oct 13 for hearing of a review plea first which has been pending with it.It also directed the Attorney General for Pakistan and the Deputy Prosecutor General NAB to submit comprehensive reports about implementation of all other orders on NRO before next date of hearing.
Meanwhile, the three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Tariq Parvez and Justice Ghulam Rabbani resumed hearing on a suo motu case taken on appointment of former managing director OGDCL Adnan A. Khawja, a beneficiary of NRO.
Attorney General for Pakistan Molvi Anwarul Haq submitted an adjournment plea and said that he was instructed by the prime minister to request on behalf of the Federation for adjournment of the pending proceedings till a decision on its review petition.
He said the prime minister had been very busy in state affairs and inter alia, with the flood situation and international commitments and wished to further consider and discuss the legal aspects of the matter.
The chief justice said that the court understood the implications and complications of the case and would fix hearing of the review petition as it was their due right.
He said," what you considered or did, it was you internal matter. A request for the review petition was never made as the federation counsel barrister Kamal Azfar was on general adjournment till Oct 10."
Deputy Prosecutor general NAB Raja Aamir Abbas submitted a list of 36 NRO beneficiaries and the current status of their cases.
He said that they had requested the Establishment Division to identify such people, who were holding government posts but the reply was still awaited.
He said similar requests were made to DG Operation NAB and deputy chairman but he got no replies.
About revival of NAB cases, he apprised that there were two categories, including the one in which accused did not appear before courts while in others the original trials were held but the appeals were pending.
The chief justice maintained that the deputy chairman NAB whose authority to work as acting chairman NAB was declared illegal by this Court, had passed illegal orders.
He asked the Deputy Prosecutor General to submit details of all such orders and hinted that if those orders were not reverted, they would issue him a notice.
The chief justice said that there were cases in Sindh too.
He said that the court was not insisting on any particular case but saying that all its orders on NRO must be implemented in letter and spirit.
He also told the Attorney General that so far new NAB chairman was not appointed though he had recorded the statement in Bank of Punjab case that the process was underway and his appointment was a matter of few days.
Justice Ghulam Rabbani questioned why prosecutors were not appointed in Sindh.
There were five accountability courts with single prosecutor. Moreover, there were no proper rooms for accountability judges, he added.
The AG said that only LHC chief justice had sent him a letter for establishment of accountability courts, and two courts in Islamabad and one in Multan were established.
The CJ also asked the NAB official to provide details of those persons who were tried under Section 31-a (conviction in absentia) of the National Accountability Ordinance.
He observed that it was a good sign that such people had surrendered and filed appeals which was their right.
He also questioned the details of cases pending in foreign countries including Switzerland to which government of Pakistan was pleaded as a civil party.
The chief justice said that the former attorney general who made requests for the withdrawal of Swiss cases was equally responsible.
To bench's query, the Attorney General replied that only inquires were held in Swiss cases and the authorities there withdrew their own people's names.
He said about 24 claimants belonging to foreign countries appeared and became parties to the alleged amount.
0 comments:
Post a Comment