- Judge transferred through Whatsapp message
NAB’s one-sided accountability is just one indication of the administration’s vindictiveness. Important PTI figures against whom NAB has conducted enquiries walk free, while opposition leaders are in NAB custody or in judicial remand on the basis of yet-to-be verified complaints. Even those who regularly presented themselves for questioning are in the physical remand of the accountability body. A perception is growing that the arrests are aimed at changing their loyalties, and if that fails to happen to tell them that NAB can keep them in custody for an indefinite period by arresting them in yet another case if they are released by the court in one.
When the all too common accusations of corruption cannot be proved against an opposition leader, he is arrested for having assets beyond means or for making wrong policy decisions. Former Punjab Law Miniser Rana Sanaullah was arrested in a narcotics case which, if established, carries the death sentence for the accused. Soon after his arrest, former Interior Minister of State Shehryar Afridi and the DG ANF told the media they possessed incontrovertible evidence and witnesses that would be presented before the court.
In a letter allegedly sent from jail and published by a national daily, Rana Sanaullah maintains that, contrary to the claims, no video has been produced before the court about the recovery of heroin despite the official claim made in the challan presented before the court. “Had that been the case, either my statement should have been recorded under CrPC Section 164 before the judge or the video should have been played.”
The mystery thickened around Rana Sanaullah’s case on Wednesday when something quite unusual happened. In the midst of the hearing the ANF court judge announced that he had just been repatriated to LHC through an order conveyed on Whatsapp, and he had no option but to recuse himself from the case. The opposition maintains that those who filed the case feared they might lose it, and wanted a new judge who could be trusted to put his signature to a judgment dictated by them. Others have called the sudden repatriation of the judge an attack on the independence of judiciary. Many would expect the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of the affair.
