The Joint Investigation Team (JIT), formed by the Supreme Court to investigate the off-shore wealth of the Sharif family, has unearthed that no serious effort has ever been made by NAB authorities regarding 18 years old cases against Sharif family.
Surprisingly, the cases against Sharif family had been initiated in 1999-2000 by NAB authorities. But since beginning, except filing four references in 1999-2000, no serious effort has ever been made regarding rest of cases by the successive NAB authorities. Even the primary allegations, on which the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the Panama case i.e. ownership of the Avenfield properties, are very much the same of which an investigation was authorized by the NAB, about 17 years ago in 2000.
Similarly, the allegations of local assets beyond legal sources of income against the Sharif family are subject matter of another ongoing investigation of the NAB. In fact, most of the time these cases remained dormant or pending on one pretext or the other.
The JIT’s damning report, submitted to the Supreme Court, alleged that ‘NAB was not actively pursuing the cases and matters are being delayed on flimsy pretexts, right from day one’.
Even after highlighting of Panama issue in media and cognizance by the courts, the basic information has not even been collected till date, rather on the pretext of Panama case, these investigations against Sharif family have been allowed to remain on the back burner, JIT report said.
NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, who took over in the last quarter of 2013, in his statement before JIT, said an SOP regarding completion of NAB cases in 10 months has been introduced but apparently the cases against Sharif family remained beyond the scope of this SOP. However, regarding the matter of non-filing of appeals against the quashing of three references by the Lahore High Court, the NAB chairman stated that he acted upon the advice of KK Agha the then PGA of NAB that not to file appeal against quashed references pertaining to Raiwind Estate, Hudaibiya Paper Mills and willful loan default of Ittefaq Foundry. He said it is binding on him under the law to act according to the advice of PGA.
In this regard, he has quoted Section 8 and Section 32(A) of NAO, 1999. However, the bare perusal of these sections highlights the fact nowhere describe the advice of PGA as binding and thus does not bar the chairman to act against the advice of PGA, said JIT report.
The JIT report further pointed out that the grounds on which the references were quashed by the Lahore High Court not in the distant past, were the non-association of the accused during investigation against them and recording their plea, by NAB. It has been noted that though these decisions are very much in field, still in all the present ongoing cases against Sharif family, against NAB despite after the lapse of 17-18 years has not associated the accused with the investigation even once, which will result in the inherent weaknesses in the cases, JIT report said.
