TERENCE J SIGAMONY
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed Pakistan Sugar Mills Association’s petitions against the report of the Sugar Inquiry Commission (SIC).
A single bench of IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Saturday after hearing the arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan and association’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had reserved the judgment, which was announced later on. The four-page verdict, authored by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, states: “The constitution of Commission vide notification, dated 16.03.2020, read with notification, dated 25.03.2020 and pursuant thereto its proceedings and report, dated 21.05.2020 have not been found to be ultra vires the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017 nor in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
“The report, dated 21.05.2020 was, therefore, lawfully considered by the Federal Cabinet in its meeting held on 21.05.2020.”
The IHC said that “keeping in view the principles and law enunciated in the judgment of the august Supreme Court rendered in the case titled ‘Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others’ [PLD 2016 SC 808] and highlighted in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 23.04.2020, handed down in ICA No. 36 of 2020, titled ‘Federation of Pakistan v. Ms Vadiyya S. Khalil and two others’, the expression ‘Federal Government’ has been explicitly interpreted as ‘the collective entity described as the Cabinet constituting the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers.’
“Moreover, it has been held that the functions and powers vested in the federal government cannot be delegated.
“The decision of the Federal Cabinet, dated 21 May 2020, to the extent of delegating its functions and powers to Shehzad Akbar, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Accountability, and Interior and approval of ‘Action Matrix’ is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
“It is noted that the federal government is empowered under Section 18(b)(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to send a reference to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) but such a decision has to be taken in accordance with the law expounded by the Supreme Court.
“The bench noted that attorney general, taking a fair stance, has stated that he would advise the competent authority to submit the proposed action(s) for the consideration of the federal cabinet.
“The federal cabinet after considering the proposed action(s) shall be at liberty to take such decisions as it may deem appropriate.
“The court expected that the decisions taken shall be in conformity with the provisions of the relevant statutes e.g. the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the Company Act, 2017, etc.
“The court further expected that while dealing with the matter the concerned officials/public office holders will have regard to the principles of due process and fair trial and refrain from acting or making statements that could prejudice the right to fair trial or violate the principles highlighted by the august Supreme Court in the case titled ‘Suo Motu Case No. 28 of 2018’ [PLD 2019 S.C. 01] and by this Court in the case titled ‘The State v. Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan’ [PLD 2020 Islamabad 109].”
The inquiry report by the Sugar Inquiry Commission was challenged by the entire sugar industry.
The report blamed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Jahangir Khan Tareen, Shehbaz Sharif, and Federal Minister Khurso Bakhtiar for misuse of public money.
The petitioners urged the IHC to declare the report as “unconstitutional and malicious”.
They also urged the court to declare that the report was published without lawful authority.
During the course of proceedings, the chief justice said the AGP had clarified the government’s stance over the matter, adding that there was no need of the stay order now.
The AGP argued that the government had taken the action in the best public interest.
He said the commission had worked according to its mandate.
“The constitution allows formation of an inquiry commission and elaborates its powers,” he added.
The AGP informed the court that the Sugar Inquiry Commission’s report was not biased as it was also against some government persons.
Justice Athar Minallah, while having a dialogue with lawyer for PSMA, asked how can they extend restraining order after such strong arguments?
He remarked that setting price of commodities is not the job of court.
The petitioners contended that the inquiry commission exceeded its mandate and the recommendations of the inquiry commission and its proceedings are not in consonance with the Act of 2017.
The association had cited federation through secretary Cabinet Division, secretary Interior, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Shahzad Akbar, special assistant to the prime minister on accountability, Wajid Zia, director general (DG) FIA and others as respondents.
