KARACHI: During the hearing of a petition filed by Nadeem advocate, against his arrest by NAB, the counsel for the petitioner, Shahab Sarki, referred to a photocopy of a printout obtained from the official website of National Accountability Bureau containing the following text: “senior judge of High Court had called the case in his chambers to give bail to Nadeem Ahmed, advocate on a Saturday when the courts don’t collapse”. “Normally function on a Saturday.
The notice was not served to NAB authorities in time.” “The council [counsel] appearing on behalf of NAB requested the court that the copy of the petition had just been received and they wanted time to go through it but the court did not give a single minute.”
Petitioner Nadeem Ahmed, advocate had filed constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, making Federation of Pakistan, National Accountability Bureau, Federal Investigating Agency, and Inspector General of Sindh respondents.
The court order said that the above statements, apart from being factually incorrect, are clearly contemptuous. “Issue notice to Director, Awareness & Prevention, NAB to appear in person along with his written explanation regarding the above, so that, appropriate orders may be passed in that regard.” A copy of the order was also provided to the senior prosecutor, NAB present in the court. The case has now been fixed for August 9, 2012.
The order of the court also states that: “Noor Muhammad Dayo, senior prosecutor, NAB submits that presently, except for reference No. 3/2012, neither any matter is pending against the petitioner nor is any inquiry in the offing against the petitioner and therefore for the present NAB does not propose to take any action against the petitioner. However, the NAB shall proceed with the above noted reference before the Accountability Court in accordance with law.
Shahab Sarki, counsel for the petitioner, submits that as narrated in the petition the petitioner is being harassed and being followed by a group of people, dressed in civvies and it is not known as to which of the respondents they belong. Sarki further submits that his client seriously apprehends that some harm may come to him by the hands of the said persons. However, since the court time is over, we would adjourn the hearing to 9.8.2012. Let intimation notice of the next date of hearing, as above, may be issued to the respondents as well as DAG and advocate general, Sindh, at the cost of the petitioner.