FIA crossing limits by including son in probe: SECP chairman

ISLAMABAD: Chairman SECP Zafar Hijazi has formally approached the DG FIA to point out that the FIA’s ongoing inquiry into the alleged record tampering issue is going beyond the scope of the inquiry.

In a letter written to the DG FIA on Friday (30th June), the SECP chairman said that the report filed by the JIT in the honourable Supreme Court was about closure of the money laundering matter in backdate i.e. matter taken up with the UK authorities.

Informed sources said that the SECP chairman told the DG FIA that the relevant documents, including copies of letter, dispatch record and note sheet, which undisputedly proved that the probe against the Sharifs’ sugar mill was closed in mid-2013 have already been provided to the FIA team. He added that the statement of all officers concerned given to the inquiry team of the FIA endorsed the same fact.

Hijazi lamented, “Unfortunately, it appears that FIA team is expanding the scope of inquiry. The issue involved with the proceedings under 263 of the Ordinance of which nature has been explained above is limited to the extent of dating of note and case officers have stated that they made backdate note of a matter which was already considered closed.”

The SECP chairman added that a preliminary report on the alleged tampering matter already shared with the DG FIA suggests the possible reason of such backdating by case officers i.e. issue of non-compliance of Investigation and Adjudication Manuals of SECP.

The SECP chairman also protested that he had been told that the FIA probe team had further required the SECP HR director to provide employment record of his son Mr Arslan Zafar, who is serving as Joint Director in SECP. Hijazi maintained that his son was appointed on merit through formal procedure in the commission much prior to his appointment as the SECP chairman.

“This appears to be outside the scope of the instant inquiry assigned by the honourable Supreme Court.”

Hijazi also informed the DG FIA through his letter that the proceedings under Section 263 of the ordinance had no nexus, whatsoever, with correspondence with the UK authorities for mutual legal assistance.

He insisted, “This requires to be properly understood otherwise a misleading conclusion may be drawn by the inquiry team keeping in view that the recording of closure of proceedings under section 263 of the Ordinance in a later date had no consequence to the proceedings against the company, as proceedings had not continued after 2013.”