ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday binned a petition requesting the suspension of accountability court proceedings against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif by terming it non-serious. The petition was filed to counter the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) order to initiate a probe against Nawaz for allegedly transferring $ 4.9 billion to India.
Justice Athar Minallah of IHC had rejected the petition filed by Shahid Orakzai on the grounds that it was frivolous. “Such petitions could incur exemplary costs on the petitioner,” Justice Minallah stated.
It merits mention here that in January, the Supreme Court (SC) had banned the above-mentioned petitioner from entering the apex court’s premises.
Orakzai pleaded in his petition that the court should direct the accountability court to drop the cases against Nawaz by considering the fact that NAB named him as a culprit in the controversial PR issued on May 8.
The petitioner maintained that the PR was aimed at damaging the standing of the deposed prime minister, especially when Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) was making preparations for the upcoming general elections.
The petitioner said that NAB accused the former PM of laundering $ 4.9 billion and claimed that it strengthened the Indian treasury by increasing the Foreign Exchange Reserves of the State Bank of India. The petition also stated that the illegal transfer of money had incurred huge financial losses on Pakistan.
“NAB has tried to create a wrong impression about Nawaz by hinting that the former PM is loyal to India and disloyal to Pakistan,” the petition stated.
During the proceedings, Justice Minallah said, “Non-serious petitions are discouraged, especially if these involve political undertones.”
He further said in his order, “In this case, the petitioner has not only wasted the time of the honourable court but has also blocked the chances of other bonafide litigants who await their turn to receive justice from the courts.”
He also said that frivolous litigation unnecessarily dragged the judiciary into political controversies and impeded the rights of the citizens.
Moreover, Justice Minallah said that the court did not doubt the public spirit of the petitioner but he had failed to satisfy the queries raised by the court regarding maintainability of the petition in question.
The judge also lectured the petitioner about the powers conferred on them by the constitution, including the provision of fundamental rights. He said that certain provisions of the Constitution gave judges the power to issue orders along with five kinds of writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto.
Justice Minallah further said that since their jurisdiction was extraordinary, it was only exercised in extraordinary cases.
