SC restrains media on Hudaibia case

F.P. Report

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court on Monday restrained media from conducting talk shows on NAB’s appeal in Hudainia Papers case.

The full bench of the apex court, which heard NAB appeal against a Lahore High Court verdict scraping Hudaibia Papers Mills Reference, directed Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to take action against those channels conducting talks shows on merits and demerits of the case.

The court further directed the regulatory body to issue show cause notices to the channels violating the ban. During Monday’s hearing, the court rejected NAB application seeking adjournment of the case till appointment of the Bureau’s prosecutor general.

The bench questioned the NAB additional prosecutor general regarding the circumstances under which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif exiled himself to Saudi Arabia in 2000 – the same year the Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference was filed against Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif before an accountability court.

Additional Prosecutor General of NAB Imranul Haq told the court the case was first registered on March 27, 2000 and that the accused returned to Pakistan on November 25, 2007. “Who exiled Nawaz Sharif? Why aren’t we taking that person’s name?” questioned Justice Isa, asking Advocate Haq whether the law has provisions for an individual to be forced into exile.

The lawyer replied that while there were no provisions in the law to this effect, an understanding was reached between the accused and the government at the time of Nawaz’s exile. “At the time, the chief executive of the country was Pervez Musharraf,” the lawyer added. “What will the courts do if tomorrow the prosecution reaches an understanding with a murderer?” Justice Isa asked. “Nobody, including the Supreme Court, has the right to send an accused person into exile.”

The lawyer told the court that under the agreement reached with the government, Nawaz went into exile himself. “If he went into exile voluntarily, action should have been taken against him as an absconder,” Justice Isa said. “Nawaz Sharif returned to Pakistan on the Supreme Court’s order,” Advocate Haq said. “If Nawaz had left the country voluntarily, he would not have had to file a petition before the court for his return,” Justice Isa observed.

Justice Alam then questioned why the accused was not arrested upon his return, to which the lawyer replied, “Once the case was underway, only the court could have ordered the accused to be arrested.” The advocate told the court that on July 17, 2011, the NAB chairman had filed a request for the case to be reopened. On 17 October that year, the accused had filed a petition in the Lahore High Court and the day after, a stay order was issued by the court, the lawyer said. “The LHC did not issue a stay order,”Justice Isa snapped back, adding that NAB had the reference quashed.

“Even if we revoke the high court’s decision, the references will not be restored,” Justice Isa remarked. The lawyer replied that an accountability court will hear the petition for the references to be restored. The court then asked the lawyer to present NAB’s arguments for the reopening of the Hudaibiya case. “If it weren’t for the Panama Papers case, you wouldn’t do anything,” Justice Isa remarked, instructing the lawyer to read the operative part of the SC’s verdict in the said case.

“The verdict does not say anything about Hudaibiya,” Justice Isa noted. “It says that when NAB files an appeal, it will be looked at.”

Earlier, the court had expressed its displeasure at the arguments presented by the lawyer in relation with an application filed by the bureau seeking an adjournment of today’s proceedings until its new prosecutor general is appointed. The court had summarily dismissed the application. “The office of the NAB prosecutor is vacant and it will be appropriate that a prosecutor appears in the court for such an important case,” the bureau’s lawyer had argued before the court.

“Do not mock the court,” Justice Isa had responded. “Why shouldn’t we initiate contempt of court proceedings against you? Every case is high-profile for us,” the judge told the lawyer. “We have nothing to do with the appointment of the prosecutor,” Justice Alam said.

Justice Isa asked the lawyer on whose recommendation the application for adjournment had been filed.

The lawyer replied that the decision was taken during a meeting presided over by the bureau’s chairman. “Well in that case, why don’t we just call the chairman to appear before the court?” Justice Isa asked, before adjourning the proceedings briefly.

During today’s hearing, the lawyer also told the court that on Saturday he had submitted before the SC documents that were sought by the bench on Nov 28. On that day, the bench had adjourned the hearing due to NAB lawyer’s lack of preparation.