LAHORE  - A judge’s request for constitution of a larger bench for hearing of a number of petitions questioning alleged anti-judiciary speeches by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and other leaders of the PML-N was an important development at the Lahore High Court last week.

The LHC was also moved against MNA Capt (r) Muhammad Safdar, son-in-law of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, over his alleged speech against the judiciary on the floor of the National Assembly.

Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi took up the petitions who requested the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench for hearing of all these petitions pending adjudication before various benches against the respondents, including Nawaz Sharif and others. Justice Naqvi sent all these petitions to the Chief Justice to form the larger bench.

During the proceedings, the judge had also expressed serious concern over speeches of the leaders of the ruling party, and had summoned secretary of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to submit reply within seven days.

A local citizen, Munir Ahmad, moved the petition and contended that the PML-N leaders had been delivering anti-judiciary speeches since the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif on July 28 in Panama Papers’ case. He pointed out that the Pemra had intentionally been allowing broadcast of hate speeches and contemptuous remarks on television channels.

The counsel said Mian Nawaz Sharif was now an ordinary citizen as he neither held any public office nor a member of any political party after his disqualification.

He argued that Nawaz Sharif and other leaders of the ruling party had been trying to prove the Supreme Court’s judgement wrong and prejudiced. He said that Pemra officials should ensure that they were public servants, not personal servants of the PML-N.

The petitioner's counsel said the Pemra was bound to perform its duties with due diligence in order to protect state institutions and the dignity and integrity of courts. He said the Pemra had the powers to bar the media houses from airing anything which was against the laws and offensive to the state institutions. The petitioner prayed to the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the leaders of the ruling party and take action against Pemra for its failure to control broadcast of alleged contemptuous speeches on TVs.

The other important case which had legal and political significance was the petition of PTI leader Yasmin Rashid against alleged spending of Rs2 billion in NA-120 – before the by-polls. The LHC directed local government secretary and TEPA to submit replies.

Dr Yasmin Rashid said that huge amount was spent in the constituency before the by-election to help Kalsoom Nawaz, wife of ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif, win. She said it was violation of the election laws and was tantamount to rigging besides misuse of government resources. The petitioner said that it was public money which was spent for personal gains. She prayed to the court to order the government to provide details of spending of Rs2 billion in the constituency.

After hearing arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, Justice Shamas Mehmood Mirza sought replies from the respondents and put off further hearing until March 19.

The Lahore High Court also heard the petition moved by PTI’s leader Aleem Khan against the National Accountability Bureau for allegedly harassing him regarding investigation into his housing schemes.

A division bench headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi took up the petition and restrained the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from harassing the petitioner. The judge, however, asked the leader to cooperate with the anti-corruption watchdog in terms of inquiries regarding his housing schemes. Aleem Khan had questioned an inquiry initiated by the NAB against Vision Developers.

Advocates Khwaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim and Azhar Siddique represented the petitioner before the bench. They contended that the NAB had opened inquiry against the petitioner’s housing scheme thrice, however, each time closed them after finding no evidence. They said under the relevant law inquiry closed three times could not be opened again.

They said the NAB violated the stay order and continued the inquiry against the petitioner only for political consideration. The NAB counsel argued that Mr. Khan had not appeared before the investigating team even once.

On this, the petitioner’s counsel stated that the court had suspended the summons issued by the NAB. The bureau’s counsel urged the court to withdraw the stay granted to the petitioner. The bench headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi turned down the NAB’s plea, however, directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating team. The court put off further hearing until April 2.

Besides this, the development on the petition seeking protection for ‘encounter specialist’ and former police inspector Abid Boxer drew attention of many when the Federal Investigation Agency told the Lahore High Court that he (Boxer) had not been extradited to Pakistan.

Justice Muhammad Anwarul Haq was hearing the petition moved by Jaffar Rafi, father-in-law of Abid Boxer, who was arrested last month in the United Arab Emirates for his alleged role in a fraud case. FIA’s director Interpol Tahir Nawaz appeared before the court and said that Abid Boxer was not in Pakistan. He said that Boxer was not brought back to the country by any agency. On this, Justice Haq put off further proceedings until March 28.

In his petition, Rafi had said his son-in-law had been booked in a number of cases and it was his strong apprehension that he would be killed in a fake encounter as soon he would be brought back to the country. He said that fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution was the right of his son-in-law and prayed the court to summon record of all cases registered against his son-in-law and order FIA and police to ensure his protection. The LHC also heard a petition moved by Hafiz Saeed Ahmad challenging ban on ‘social welfare’ activities and freezing of bank accounts of his two organisations -- Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FIF).

Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the petitioner and directed the law officers of federal and provincial governments to submit replies on behalf of the respondent by March 29.

Advocate A.K. Dogar argued that the ministry of interior on Feb 10 issued a notification with regard to freezing bank accounts and taking over assets associated with both organisations — JuD and FIF — under the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2018.

He said the government of Pakistan acted under the pressure of foreign powers, including United Nations and India. He contended that Pakistan is a sovereign state and makes its own laws to govern its citizens. He said if there was a conflict between the laws of the land and any provision of United Nations Security Council Act, 1948, the law of the land shall prevail, he added.

The petitioner said the FIF owns 369 ambulances, had helped 72,000 persons to charity hospitals and treated 600,000 patients in 2017 alone. He said the JuD dug out 2,000 wells for supplying water in Tharparkar, Balochistan and Baltistan.

The counsel prayed to the court to declare the impugned notifications of the interior ministry with regard to taking over assets of the organizations null and void.

 

 

FIDA HUSSNAIN