Government bigwigs dispute list of NRO

By Mohammad Ahmad Noorani

ISLAMABAD: The unannounced war between the Presidency and the PM House came out in the open on Sunday when, besides others, top presidential aides and a provincial governor blasted the NRO list issued by the state minister for law on the orders of the prime minister.

The list was strongly disputed by top friends and aides of President Asif Ali Zardari as many of them issued strong denials and explanations, with the president’s secretary general Salman Faruqui, saying “the innocent continued to be maligned with the guilty ones even after 12 years of media trial and no effort was being made to separate the two.”

“I offer to appear before any competent forum to substantiate my statement,” Faruqui averred An informed source said President Zardari was aware of the statement issued by Salman Faruqui on Sunday.

MQM leader Altaf Hussain strongly disputed the list from London, saying all the cases mentioned against him were instituted after he had left Pakistan in 1992. Pakistan’s ambassadors to Washington and London, Husain Haqqani and Wajid Shamsul Hasan had disputed their names in the list on Saturday with both offering to contest their cases in courts, if needed.

Haqqani said he was not even aware of any case and would contest it in any court if he were summoned.

The spate of denials and explanations left political observers wondering about the homework that was done before the release of the NRO list and whether any consultations had been held between the Presidency and the PM House before the names were released.

The NAB, on the other hand, claimed that all cases on their files had been included and no discrimination has been done. It was unclear how the PM House or the Law Ministry would reconcile the issues raised by top aides and friends of the president after the release of the NRO list.

An official press release was issued by the secretary general explaining his own position but his observation that “the innocent” had been bracketed with “the guilty” was significant as he did not identify who were the guilty.

Faruqui’s long denial came soon after Governor of Sindh, Ishartul Ebad issued his explanation saying the only case mentioned against him in the list was a 1992 case which had been quashed soon afterwards.

Salman Faruqui took strong exception to the allegations levelled against him in the NRO list of beneficiaries and urged the law minister to take steps to undo the damage done to innocent victims like him.

He said he was falsely implicated in textile quota case long after the original FIR was filed in 1997 against others only to politically victimise him. Even at that time he was not accused of forgery or fraud or illegal allotment of textile quota.

“It is a matter of deep concern and regret that the Sindhu did not find time to go through the record of the case and released to the media an unsubstantiated list containing false allegations that were not levelled even at the time,” he said.

Salman Faruqui said he was dismissed from service on the basis of the same concocted material but the Supreme Court of Pakistan, then also headed by Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, declared his dismissal as against law and principles of natural justice.

He said that the Supreme Court even rejected the revision application filed by the government only to delay his reinstatement and as a result the government had no choice but to reinstate him in service.

Referring to the mention of his name relating to the award of monopoly licence to ARY Gold in 1994 for the import of gold he said that originally he was not among the accused but was included as one of the accused in a supplementary reference that was filed much later.

He said that he had nothing to do with the said licence as he was posted as secretary commerce much later towards the end 1995. He had challenged action against him intended to harass and defame him.

He said that before filing and publishing concocted cases the frivolous charges and allegations should have been carefully reviewed.Faruqui said it was painful that the innocent continued to be maligned with the guilty ones even after 12 years of media trial and no effort was being made to separate the two. “In not doing so, those responsible were perhaps inadvertently helping the guilty at the cost of the innocent,” Faruqui lamented.

A spokesman for governor Sindh Dr Ishratul Ebad on Sunday said that since there had been no case against him under NRO, the question of taking advantage under the NRO by him does not arise.

The spokesman expressed surprise over reports about withdrawal of cases against the governor under NRO. He made it clear that there was no case pending against Dr Ishratul Ebad when he took over as governor in December 2002 and this had been announced at the higher level a number of times as well.

In the past, he said, an FIR was registered against him as political victimisation and that was declared legally nullified before he took over as governor. He said the case, as has been shown in the list released by State Minister for law Afzal Sindhu, the FIR for the same was registered 17 years back and it was legally withdrawn years back.

The governor’s spokesman said the federal government has been contacted over the inclusion of his name in the list. He expressed the hope that after this clarification, all speculations about the matter will end.

He said governor Dr Ishratul Ebad believes in the supremacy of law and even if there had been any case against him, he would have faced the courts despite the privilege he enjoys.

Our Lahore correspondent adds: Adviser to the Punjab Chief Minister Saeed Mehdi has expressed his astonishment over the inclusion of his name in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) beneficiaries’ list and claimed he was implicated in the plane highjack case against Nawaz Sharif and an assets case. However, he claimed he was honourably acquitted in both the cases by courts.

Talking to The News, he said courts had acquitted him in the plane highjack case and also dismissed the appeal of Sindh government against the decision. He said he was acquitted in an assets case by the LHC Pindi bench.

Mehdi said the polo ground case was adjourned by the court and had not heard since. He said that there was no reason of taking benefit of NRO against a case, which had neither been heard nor he was given punishment in it. He claimed that he had not applied for getting benefit of NRO and he did not know as why his name was included in NRO list.

Mehdi said that he was witness in the polo ground case along with Asif Ali Zardari. He claimed that during his imprisonment in Adiala Jail, the prosecutor had approached him and offered him to become approver in this case against Asif Ali Zardari, but he had declined the offer. He said the prosecutor had asked him that he could better understand as why he (Saeed Mehdi) had declined offer to become approver in plane highjack case against Mian Nawaz Sharif, but it was beyond his understanding as why he was not prepared to become approver against Zardari.

Mehdi said that he had plainly told the prosecutor that it was against his honour and dignity to become approver against anyone. He stated that incumbent Commerce Minister Naveed Qamar and jail superintendent were witness to it.

Online adds: Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that he has nothing to do with “Yellow Cab Scheme” adding that he was the worst political victim.

In a statement issued here on Sunday, Rehman Malik said that shallow charges were leveled against him because he had refused to become approver against Benazir Bhutto. He cleared that there are no corruption cases against him and court has exonerated him after regular hearing. It is a false propaganda to malign my character, he added.

Rehman Malik said that PML-Q cabinet had approved NRO and later on it was cleared by the rest of the political parties. He said that issuing of statement by PML-Q leadership on NRO is beyond his comprehension.

The interior minister said that he would make all the facts public at right time. He further added that running democratic system in the country is due to the NRO. Dictator was compelled to doff his uniform, judiciary was restored and elections were held in accordance with schedule and dictator has slipped abroad. He said, “Assassination attempt on me and later on sending me behind the bars and then let scorpions and snakes free in my prison was all part of political victimization against me”.

NNI adds: Nawab Mohammad Yousuf Talpur, member of Central Executive Committee of the Pakistan People’s Party has expressed his surprise over inclusion of his name in the list of beneficiaries of the NRO adding neither he nor his counsel had approached the court for benefit under the NRO.

In a press statement issued Sunday, the senior PPP leader said that he was implicated in the Ursus Tractor Scheme reference, which was never heard by any court after 2000 and he didn’t opt or ask for any benefit under NRO. While no offence was committed in the Ursus Tractor scheme.

The market value of Ursus and Belarus Tractors was Rs300,000 per unit then but the People’s government provided the growers tractors for Rs150,000 per unit.

“Being a co-accused in the case, and the case having been dropped by the court, it was a logical consequence that no action was due against me. Thus consequential result of the process could not be branded as a benefit drawn by me at any forum,” he said adding that the reference was heard by the court between 1997-1999 and thereafter the proceedings were stopped.

“During the proceedings or afterwards, I frequently visited abroad and was never arrested or put on ECL in the case,” he added.

Nawab Yousuf Talpur further said that he was ready to face the case as he had faced it earlier because the cases framed for political vendetta by the previous government could not stand in a fair trial and demanded that his name be deleted from the list of the NRO beneficiary.

Meanwhile Transparency International, the worldwide organisation monitoring corruption jumped into the NRO debate on Sunday night when its Pakistan director Adil Gilani issued a press release explaining what was meant by “corruption”.

“Most of NRO beneficiaries are saying they were not tried under corruption. This is a new joint strategy decided by them. All should know that Article 9 of the NAB Ordinance defines Corruption & Corrupt Practices as under:

“9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices:

(i) If he accepts or obtains from any person or offers any gratification directly or indirectly, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward such as is specified in section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) for doing or for-bearing to do any official act, or for showing or for-bearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person; or

(ii) If he accepts or obtains or offers any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or likely to be, concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with his official functions or[from] any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(iii) If he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use, or for the use of any other person, any property entrusted to him, or under his control, or wilfully allows any other person so to do; or

(iv) if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse* or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage; or

(v) If he or any of his dependents or benamindars owns, possesses, or has [acquired] right or title in any [“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] or

pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot [reasonably] account for [or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]; or

(vi) [If he misuses his authority so as to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person, or [renders or attempts to render] [or wilfully fails to exercise his authority to prevent the grant, or rendition of any undue benefit or favour which he could have prevented by exercising his authority];

(vii) If he has issued any directive, policy, or any SRO (Statutory Regulatory Order) or any other order which grants or [attempts to grant] any [undue] concession or benefit in any taxation matter or law or otherwise so as to benefit himself or any relative or associate or a benamidar [or any other person]

[(viii) If he commits an offence of wilful default, {; or }]

[(ix) If he commits the offence of cheating as defined in section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), and thereby dishonestly induces members of the public at large to deliver any property including money or valuable security to any person; or

(x) If he commits the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) with regard to any property including money or valuable security entrusted to him by members of the public at large; (This is applicable to public corporations private sector board members)

(xi) If he, in his capacity as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust as provided in section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) in respect of property entrusted to him or over which he has dominion; and

(xii) If he aids, assists, abets, attempts or acts in conspiracy with a person or a holder of public office accused of an offence as provided in clauses (i) to (xi).]; and

(b) All offences under this ordinance shall be non-bailable and, notwithstanding anything contained in section [426, 491,] 497, 498 and 561 A or any other provision of the code, or any other law for the time being in force no court shall have jurisdiction to grant bail to any person accused of any offence under this ordinance.