Zardari must submit assets details of himself, children: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday remarked that former president Asif Ali Zardari should submit details of his and his children’s assets, and not those owned by former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

The remarks were made when the counsel for Asif Zardari alleged that the trial of Benazir's grave was being conducted. The chief justice said that they could not even think of conducting a trial of the assassinated former prime minister. The court was not summoning the asset details of Benazir Bhutto but those of Asif Zardari and his children.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, was hearing Zardari’s review petition against the Supreme Court verdict summoning details of his assets in relation to the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case.

The bench took up the review petition and directed his counsel Farooq H Naek to provide details of assets Zardari inherited from former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. On Sept 18, Asif Ali Zardari had filed a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict summoning details of his 10-year record of the assets and foreign and local bank accounts owned by him.

The former president had filed a review petition in the apex court under Article 188 of the Constitution, read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for review of order of the apex court of August 29 2018, in a petition regarding the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).

On Aug 29, a three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, while hearing the case related to the NRO, had expressed dissatisfaction over the affidavits submitted by Zardari and General (retd) Pervez Musharraf regarding their assets and directed them to provide within three weeks a 10-year record of the assets and foreign and local bank accounts owned by them.

In his review petition, the counsel for Asif Ali Zardari had contended that under the law, asset details of a person could not be summoned and it was a violation of basic rights, adding that to date no corruption cases had been proved against the former president.

Zardari had questioned if the impugned order ran contrary to the established jurisprudence of Pakistan as there did not exist any provision in the law of the country which required a person to disclose all his assets and business activities that he might have conducted over the past decade.

He further questioned as to whether the said order fails to take into account the practical difficulties that would occur in attempting to gather the information required to be furnished in the affidavit sought under the said order.

On Tuesday, the court, after taking back its earlier order of August seeking details of Benazir Bhutto’s assets, directed Farooq H Naek to provide the details of assets they had received in inheritance from Benazir Bhutto.

Farooq H Naek, while arguing the case, submitted that the court had ordered Zardari to submit an affidavit in line with the Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, however, observed that as the matter was related to the nation's wealth and interests, that’s why the court invoked the Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

Naek contended that his client had been imprisoned from 1997 until 2005 and was being asked for the assets of his children, who were not under his care.

Monitoring desk adds: To the court remarks about submission of 10-year details, Naek, said, “You can have details for the last five years, but please don’t ask for details of the last 10 years. The law only holds for five years.”

However, the court rejected Naek’s request and upheld that asset details should be provided for the last 10 years. Naek then requested, “Asset details of independent children should not be summoned either.”

The chief justice, in response, said: “Now, all children are independent and mature. But daughters are under guardianship till marriage.” Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked Naek, “Did you destroy all records yourself?” To this, the counsel stated, “I indicated towards the presence of the record.”

Nominating Musharraf, Zardari and Qayyum as respondents, petitioner Feroz Shah Gilani had requested the court in April to order recovery of ‘huge amounts of public money’ misappropriated and wasted by them through unlawful means ‘already on record in different judgments of the Supreme Court and high court’.