Ishaq Dar filed review petition in SC
22 August, 2017
ISLAMABAD: Formor Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on Monday also filed a review petition in Supreme Court against its July 28 verdict in Panama Papers case.
The review petition was filed under Article 188 of the Constitution through counsels Shahid Hamid and Dr Tariq Hassan, requesting the court to set aside its final order passed on July 28 wherein NAB had been directed to file a reference against Ishaq Dar for possessing assets beyond his known sources of income.
Dar made PTI chief Imran Khan, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman, Federation of Pakistan through Law and Justice Division secretary, Interior secretary and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) chairman respondents.
In his review petition, Dar prayed that the direction in the impugned judgment and final order for filing of a reference against him be stayed till final orders on his review petition, besides dismissing the petition of PTI chief Imran Khan.
He contended that the joint investigation team (JIT) exceeded its mandate by opining on whether or not his assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income and the court has regrettably erred in law, an error floating on the surface of the record, in passing a direction for a NAB reference against him on the basis of the JIT report that was beyond its mandate as per this apex court’s April 20, 2017 order.
He submitted that as evident from his wealth reconciliation statement filed on July 17, 2017, his net assets were Rs 9.11 million on June 30, 1993 and rose to Rs 831.70 million as on June 30, 2009. He stated that the record of the income was presented to the JIT. It is an arguable point whether the period of 16 years can be considered as ‘short span of time’, Dar contended. He added that the court had failed to take into account that the worth of the petitioner’s assets had reduced by Rs 544 million in next seven years, including the time when he was finance minister. Dar also pointed out that he had submitted the records of his wealth and income statements from 1983-2016 which were accepted by the tax authorities.
He said the amplitude of powers conferred by Article 184(3) for enforcement of fundamental rights cannot be expanded to negate or whittle down his fundamental rights under Articles, 4, 9, 10-A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution or to reduce the powers of NAB under Section 18 of its ordinance to a nullity. He contended that arguments on the JIT report were heard by three-judge bench of the apex court only, while the impugned final order was passed by five-judge bench including two judges who never heard arguments on the JIT report and or considered his objections relating thereto.
The petitioner submitted that passing of the impugned final order by a bench including two judges who did not hear the entire case vitiates the impugned final order in its entirety. He stated that July 28 verdict and appointment of a Supreme Court judge to monitor the NAB investigation is a violation of articles 175(2) and (3) and 203 and other provisions of the constitution.