1 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE. W.P No__________________/2020 MIR SHAKIL UR RAHMAN S/o Mir Khalil-ur-Rahman Resident of House No. 8-H, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore. (Presently confined in District / Camp Jail, Lahore). …………Petitioner VERSUS 1. THE CHAIRMAN National Accountability Bureau NAB Headquarters G-5/2, Attaturk Avenue, Islamabad. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig Multan Road, Lahore. 3. MUHAMMAD ABID HUSSAIN Assistant Director/Investigation Officer National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig, Lahore. …………Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973. Respectfully Sheweth:- 1. That the Petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the Jang/Geo Group, the oldest, largest and the most popular media group in Pakistan which has always enjoyed an enviable repute as true professional committed to excellence. It is known for its services and contribution for democracy, rule of law, independence of judiciary, human rights and good governance.
23
Embed
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE. SHAKIL UR RAHMAN/Mir... · Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. 11. That the emergence of the respondent bureau, its credibility, partiality
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE.
W.P No__________________/2020 MIR SHAKIL UR RAHMAN S/o Mir Khalil-ur-Rahman Resident of House No. 8-H, M.A. Johar Town, Lahore.
(Presently confined in District / Camp Jail, Lahore). …………Petitioner
VERSUS
1. THE CHAIRMAN National Accountability Bureau NAB Headquarters
G-5/2, Attaturk Avenue, Islamabad.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig Multan Road, Lahore.
3. MUHAMMAD ABID HUSSAIN Assistant Director/Investigation Officer National Accountability Bureau NAB Complex, Thokhar Niaz Baig, Lahore.
…………Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973.
Respectfully Sheweth:-
1. That the Petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the Jang/Geo Group,
the oldest, largest and the most popular media group in Pakistan
which has always enjoyed an enviable repute as true professional
committed to excellence. It is known for its services and
contribution for democracy, rule of law, independence of
judiciary, human rights and good governance.
2
2. That the political history of Pakistan is replete with the instances
of victimization of the Jang/ Geo Group for a number of times for
its cause and the same had suffered a lot during all regimes but it
never subdued before the tyranny and might of the state and
throughout stood the test of time.
3. That for more than 45 years, the Petitioner has been working as a
journalist and in the news business in Pakistan; the Petitioner
launched various newspapers, magazines and TV channels setting
up a new benchmark for journalism nationally and
internationally.
4. That over the last 60 years, Jang Group’s insistence on pursuing an
independent media policy has repeatedly put the Jang Group at
odds with unhappy governments, governments that wanted a
compliant media willing to render favorable media coverage so
that the sovereign people of Pakistan would not be able to assess
their lack of performance and shortcomings.
5. That the result of the Jang/Geo Group’s insistence on pursuing an
independent media policy has meant that the Daily Jang
newspaper was and continues to remain the most popular Urdu
newspaper in Pakistan and abroad and its English newspaper, The
News International, has remained one of the leading newspapers
in the country, while Geo News was and continues to be the most
credible and most popular news channel in the country.
6. That by way of background, it is pertinent to state that when NAB
and NAB personnel were criticized, Geo News deemed it in public
interest to safeguard the sanctity and credibility of the
accountability process, to broadcast such news and to question
the authenticity of any such content with the serious allegations
contained in it should not be presumed blindly.
3
7. That the above infuriated both NAB officials as well as the
incumbent government and immediately thereafter Geo News
management, its anchors, especially the anchor and producer of
the program, “Aaj Shahzaib Khanzada Ke Saath”, and particularly,
the Petitioner, started facing threats that NAB would get the
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (hereinafter
‘PEMRA’) to ban the program.
8. That it was in this background, that on the behest of NAB, PEMRA
started issuing multiple notices to Geo News and its anchors and
started imposing fines.
9. That finally, Geo had no option but to approach this Hon’ble Court
four months ago (WP No. 61353/2019) just to seek a direction
by the Hon’ble Court to PEMRA “not to treat NAB as a state
institution”, as NAB was an investigating body just like the Federal
Investigation Agency. To the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge,
PEMRA has still to file a reply in that petition.
10. That without prejudice to the above, even otherwise, an unholy
collaboration of NAB and the incumbent government led to a
collapse in business confidence and imprisonment of almost all
the opposition leadership, including, inter alia, former President
Mr. Asif Ali Zardari and former Prime Ministers Mr. Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.
11. That the emergence of the respondent bureau, its credibility,
partiality and use for political engineering has throughout been a
matter of heated debate not only by all the political parties but
also by human rights organizations and intelligentsia both at
national and international level. It is pertinent to mention here
that the conduct of the respondent bureau and the manner of use
of authority by its officials have also been judicially noticed by the
4
superior courts of this country in many cases.
12. That on account of instances of excessive and misuse of its
process and unjustified harassment by the officials of the
respondent bureau, the business community and the bureaucracy
were constrained to lobby with the powers-that-be and had
brought to the notice, amongst others, of the Honourable Prime
Minister and other high officials their deep concerns about the
state of the economy.
13. That it was in the above context that the incumbent government
realized that NAB’s unchecked and daily harassment of private
citizens, businessmen and bureaucrats had completely damaged,
amongst other, business confidence and it was a major
impediment in the government’s plan to put the country on a path
on growth.
14. That it was thus that the government itself promulgated an
Ordinance on 28.12.2019 amending NAO 1999, seeking to protect
private citizens, businessmen and bureaucrats who had become
virtually dysfunctional. That in a way is a kind of an admission by
the government that NAB had gone out of control and it needed to
be reined in at least to the extent of businessman/bureaucracy.
15. That on 28.02.2020, the Deputy Director (Coord), Complaint
Verification Cell, summoned the Petitioner vide Notice No.
1(33)/HQ/CV/769/20/NH-DD/NAB-L to appear at NAB’s Lahore
Office on 05.03.2020 along with “complete record” of a matter
which had been occasioned 34 years ago and was in the stage of
‘Complaint Verification’. In fact, as evident from the Notice itself, it
has been issued by the Complaint Verification Cell, NAB and was
titled ‘Subject Complaint Verification is under process with this
Bureau’.
5
16. In fact, the Notice was received on 03.03.2020, whereas, as stated
above, it required the Petitioner’s appearance on 05.03.2020.
Despite the inadequacy thereof, the Petitioner, as a law-abiding
citizen, appeared in the office of NAB at Lahore. On the said date,
the Petitioner took with him some notes, mainly from his memory
of 34 years ago and material he could lay his hands on, and
offered it to the officials of NAB. The Petitioner also stated that it
might be more convenient if they issued him a specific
questionnaire. They refused to do so, however, stating that he
could make out the questions from their conversations and record
them for himself. These came to about thirteen (13) questions
which the Petitioner wrote in his own hand, whilst noting verbal
confirmation of the same, from the concerned NAB officials. In the
hope of facilitating an end to this unwarranted action, he had
earlier hurriedly typed out a response to the ‘non-notice’,
‘non-questionnaire’, which he now sought to submit to the NAB
officials concerned, but they were not willing to take it from him
although they received a copy after he had signed it in their
presence and added a caveat in his hand under it. (This too
however, was seized by NAB when all documents with him were
retained by NAB on 12.03.2020, at the time of his unlawful arrest).
Copy of NAB Notice dated 28.02.2020 appended herewith as
Annexure A.
17. That on 10.03.2020, the Petitioner received another Notice along
with certain queries from NAB, with summons and directions to
appear before the NAB officials again on 12.03.2020.
18. That since the proceedings were yet meant only to verify the
complaint and had not reached the stage where the Petitioner
could be put on notice, the Petitioner (or any reasonable person
for that matter) could not be expected to apprehend that he would
6
be arrested at such a preliminary stage of the probe. He thus
arrived at the NAB office in Lahore on 12.03.2020, carrying with
him personal documents, including the tentative drafts he had
made for his own use and review before finalizing for
submissions.
19. That despite the extreme paucity of time granted, the Petitioner
began an exercise to address the queries and drafting of replies
thereto. He could obviously not complete this process in the short
period granted, as would be evident from the draft
replies/submissions themselves (which are all presently in the
possession of NAB). It can be ascertained from the documents in
NAB’s possession, that the ‘replies’ to the queries contained
therein, were for the personal use of the Petitioner himself, were
of a tentative draft nature, and, in no case final and ready for
submission to NAB.
20. That what seems obvious to the Petitioner in hindsight is that
NAB was not interested in any question or answer as can be
verified by video recording which are in NAB’s possession and
were recorded as per NAB SOPs during inquiry and investigation
at NAB premises, but while the Petitioner was in the NAB
premises at Lahore - out of good faith and cooperating with NAB -
the officials told him that he had been put under arrest pursuant
to a Warrant of Arrest issued by Respondent No. 1 in Islamabad at
the very same time and day. The Petitioner was also deprived,
inter alia, of three cellphones, credit cards, hand bag which were
in his personal car which was not in NAB premises along with
original private papers etc, the preliminary and incomplete draft
replies as well as the record he took with him including
photocopies. Copies of Ground of Arrest and Warrant of Arrest
dated 12.03.2020 appended herewith as Annexure B,C.
7
21. That as evident from the foregoing, the arrest of the Petitioner on
12.03.2020 at the Complaint Verification Stage, was in blatant
violation, inter alia, of the SOP as well as recent pronouncements
of the Superior Courts. In addition, the Petitioner sought to
exercise his right to meeting with his counsel/advocate and family
members but he was denied the right. He was made to sign off on
certain documents, in which he made clear his unwillingness to
sign as can be verified on arrest warrant. He has no copies nor
exact recall of documents or its contents, due to untold stress
caused on being informed, that had been unduly arrested.
22. That as per grounds of arrest, the prosecution story precisely was
that the petitioner in connivance with officers/officials of LDA,
Ex-Chief Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others
illegally got exempted / allotted 54 plots measuring 1-Kanal each
situated at Canal Bank, H-Block, M.A Johar Town, Lahore in sheer
violation of provisions of Exemption Policy of 1986 formulated for
M.A. Johar Town, Lahore etc against 180 Kanals of land
purportedly acquired in Mouza Niaz Baig Lahore; Petitioner got
allotted / exempted these plots in sheer violation of Exemption
Policy and illegally obtained all the plots of 1-Kanal each despite
the fact that as per Exemption Policy maximum 15 plots of
1-Kanal denomination could be exempted/allotted but accused
being in league with co-accused illegally got exempted 54 plots
measuring 1-kanal each including 2 streets and in a compact block
at prime location on Canal; the petitioner in connivance with
other co-accused persons illegally got included 2 streets which
were a thorough fare/state land in illegally exempted plots
against the rules/regulation and law; the land so acquired was
situated in 3 different chunks / pockets but in violation of rules a
compact block of land was obtained/ allotted to the petitioner; in
order to cover himself, the petitioner in connivance with other
8
co-accused persons transferred the illegally exempted plots in the
name of his wife as well as minor children and then got
transferred the same in his name; furthermore, the petitioner in
connivance with co-accused persons got allotted excess land at