by RAJA FAISAL
–Closure note was backdated under Hijazi’s influence, claimed SECP officers
ISLAMABAD: A preliminary look at the evidence shows that the closure note was made by SECP Commissioner Tahir Mahmood, SECP executive directors Maheen Fatima, Abid Hussain and Ali Azeem Ikram. But at the same time, all of them stated that the closure note was backdated under the influence of former SECP chief Zafarul Haq Hijazi, observed the judge.
While addressing the issue of backdate entries, the judge observed that the closure note was required as it was well discussed – in emails presented before the court and probed by FIA – between the relevant dealing officers i.e. Tahir Mahmood, Maheen Fatima, Abid Hussain and Ali Azeem Ikram. Thereafter, these officers signed the closure note in backdating and then became witnesses for the same incident against Zafar Hijazi.
A tentative look at the evidence shows that the closure note was backdated after meetings and full discussions among Tahir Mahmood, Maheen Fatima, Abid Hussain, Ali Azeem Ikram and Tariq Ahmed. All of them were in the same boat, observed the judge.
The judge had also referred to the various emails exchanged between Tariq Ahmed and Maheen Fatima on this issue with the observation that none of those emails mentioned anything regarding Hijazi. It was concluded that other than the statements of officers who signed the alleged closure note in backdate, the independent corroborative evidence is needed in the case against Zafar Hijazi.
The judge, while granting bail to Hijazi, referred to the JIT’s analysis of Maheen that she is a dicey character. It also relied on Abid Hussain’s statement before the JIT in which he had disclosed that the case against Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited was made on political grounds by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government.
It is pertinent to mention that during opening and closing of the case, Tahir Mahmood was the commissioner in-charge of the department handling the case. While the concerned officers have confirmed Tahir’s involvement, yet he has shied away from having any association with the case.
The judge emphasized on the JIT’s report that Abid Hussain knew about the irregularity (backdate note) but did not take any steps to address this criminal act. As a matter of fact, backdating was not possible without the consent of Abid Hussain as he was the custodian of record when this incident took place.
The court expressed displeasure over FIA for not providing Hijazi with an opportunity to put up his defence while recording statements of the witnesses under section 164 CRPC.
