Justice system heading towards collapse: Abid Saqi

LAHORE: Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Abid Saqi said on Friday that it’s a settled law that observations in a judicial decision on a bail application are of tentative nature and do not influence the decision of the trial court.

He was speaking in the Geo News programme Naya Pakistan and commenting on the Lahore High Court’s detailed decision on the bail petition of Jang-Geo Editor-in-Chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman in 34-year-old case. The LHC earlier in the day had issued a 19-page detailed verdict on the case.

He said the trial court has to give a comprehensive decision about conviction or acquittal. He said people are suffering due to systemic flaws inthe justice system that is fast heading towards collapse. “We have not done anything seriously to remove the systemic flaws since independence,” he added.

He said some people are prosecuted on the basis of vindictive legislation, adding that a dictator, Pervez Musharraf, enacted the NAB law to politically victimize opponents. To a question by the programme host, Shahzad Iqbal, that what is the justification of keeping Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman in custody while the NAB has stated in the case that it has prepared the reference, and also trial has yet to begin, Mr Saqi said this is a basic contradiction and “painful expression of law”. This is unjust that NAB courts have not been empowered to grant bail, he said, adding that this law has many inhuman aspects.

Abid Saqi said it’s a settle law that if a special is already operative then the offence has to be determined under its mechanism, and added the judges, however, have taken a position which the defence council would argue against in the Supreme Court.

He said he hoped the judgement would be set aside in the apex court because the case is very clear on a few points especially the delay of 34 years. Speaking in the programme, counsel for Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman Amjad Pervaiz said that the nature of observations given in the bail order is of tentative nature. The Supreme Court has also said in its various verdicts that the observations given in the bail order is of tentative nature. These observations are not a final verdict of guilt, and they would not impact the trial court verdict, added the lawyer.

He said even if it’s not written in the bail verdict that the observations made during the bail proceedings would be of tentative nature, that does not change their legal status and the trial courts give their verdicts according to the evidence presented before it.

Shedding light on the exemption policy, the lawyer of Jang/Geo Editor-in-Chief said that when any government acquires lands from citizens for developing housing schemes, 30 per cent of the developed land is given to the real land owners. This is called exemption policy, the giving the owners 30pc land is not a favour but a right of the land owners. However, the government receives development charges for that 30pc land from the owners to provide them roads, parks and other amenities on that area of land. However, exemption is a right of the land owners and not a favour to them, added the lawyer.

About the issue of National Accountability Bureau claim of Rs143.5 million loss to the national exchequer in Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman reference, the lawyer said that the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) had acquired 180-kanal and 18-marla land from private owners in 1986, and Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman was registered as the general power of attorney for the land owners. He was supposed to get 54-kanal and 5-marla land as a right, under the exemption policy, as NAB also admits it. On Aug 27, 1990, the LDA prepared the master plan for the housing scheme, and received additional price of four kanals and 12 marlas for the two roads passing through the land, purchased by Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, under the LDA the then law and the standard operating procedures (SOPs).

However, the price policy changed in 1990, and in 1992, the LDA demanded Rs6.4 million additional amount, saying the price of additional land would be received according to the market price. A reply was submitted to the LDA that the price was paid according to the then policy, and a new policy made after four years of the agreement could not be implemented on the old agreement. No further notice was ever received from the LDA, which means the Authority was satisfied with the reply.

However, NAB claims that the notice for Rs6.4 million was not withdrawn; it was still pending payment in the file, and now that amount had risen to Rs140 million.

The lawyer said that in 2016, another consolidation process was carried out for the village where Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman land was situated. And after assessment, it was stated that the entitlement of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman’s land owners’ entitlement was 180 kanals and eight marlas instead of 180 kanals and 18 marls. The LDA sent a notice that entitlement had been lessened by 10 marlas and therefore the price of three marlas should be deposited according to the current market price. Being a law-abiding citizen of Pakistan, Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman also paid that additional amount, added the lawyer.

Amjad Pervaiz said that LDA should have been the petitioner in the case but interestingly, it had never acted as a petitioner in this affair, not even before NAB, said the lawyer. Even the reference had been filed on an application of a third person, who had no relevance with the issue at all, said the lawyer. The LDA has never asked Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman that any amount was due from him. But a reference of Rs140 million has been filed on the application of an irrelevant person, regretted the lawyer.

Advocate Amjad Pervaiz said that according to Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan, any law that affects the legal right of anyone could not be implemented retrospectively. That means, if a policy was made in 1990, it could not be implemented on the transactions made in 1986. The law is not limited to Pakistan, but also in India, the USA and across the world.

The counsel for Jang/Geo Editor-in-Chief said that an amendment to NAB Ordinance was introduced in December 2019 that no case could be filed over misuse of authority if the public office-holder had not gained any financial benefit from it. The lawyer said Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman never held any public office and therefore the law about misuse of authority did not apply to him.

To another question, Amjad Pervaiz said that no proofs of corruption or corrupt practices were presented in the case, therefore NAB law did not apply on it. However, the bench gave reasoning for it whatever it deemed correct. It happens that a court gives weightage to a point which it believes to be reasonable. However, the right to appeal against any verdict is always there, added the lawyer. He said various factors decide under what law, the case would be proceeded in a court of law. As LDA has its own law, its policy about payments and punishments over violations, this case should have been run under the LDA laws. There are SC observations that if two laws are applicable to one case, the proceedings would be carried out under the law in which the accused has more rights. However, we have the right to file an appeal against the bench observations, added the lawyer.

To a question about the issue of discrimination in the case, Amjad Pervaiz said that no other accused was arrested or proceeded against in the matter so far. The then Punjab chief minister Nawaz Sharif, an accused in the case, is out of the country. Two other accused officials, the then LDA DG and the Director Land Development, had also not been arrested.

However, added the lawyer, we did not want their arrest, as we believe that in this case, nobody should have been arrested. It is a 34 years old transaction, and a civil nature case between the LDA and the land owners. If the NAB pea is taken right, then all LDA DGs since 1986 and all directors planning should be held accountable and they should all be arrested. And if only Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman is arrested, it is discrimination.