Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Panama Case - Post Verdict Discussion and Updates
- Thread starter Arsalan
- Start date
Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Hudabiya reference served no purpose but to oppress Sharif family: SC
Web Desk
JANUARY 5, 2018
The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a detailed verdict about the dismissal of National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB’s) request to restore Rs. 1.2 billion Hudabiya case against the Sharif family.
The three-judge bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam issued a 36-page judgement on Friday saying SC concluded that the “Sharif family was denied due process” in the case.
“We have come to the painful conclusion that the respondents were denied due process. The legal process was abused by keeping the reference pending indefinitely and unreasonably, and the respondents were denied the right to vindicate themselves. The reference served no purpose but to oppress them,” the verdict said.
It also showed concerns over the NAB’s failure to pursue the case at the relevant time.
“NAB did not produce the accused in court, NAB did not seek to have charges framed against them. NAB did not examine a single witness, nor did it tender evidence. NAB also sought innumerable adjournments,” said the ruling.
The bench also said that some media groups, while reporting the proceedings of the case, “violated the parameters of factual reporting, broadcasting and printing views of persons who ware interested in one particular outcome”.
Media should accurately report the proceedings rather than being deliberate on a case still under investigation, said the Bench.
Web Desk
JANUARY 5, 2018
The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a detailed verdict about the dismissal of National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB’s) request to restore Rs. 1.2 billion Hudabiya case against the Sharif family.
The three-judge bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam issued a 36-page judgement on Friday saying SC concluded that the “Sharif family was denied due process” in the case.
“We have come to the painful conclusion that the respondents were denied due process. The legal process was abused by keeping the reference pending indefinitely and unreasonably, and the respondents were denied the right to vindicate themselves. The reference served no purpose but to oppress them,” the verdict said.
It also showed concerns over the NAB’s failure to pursue the case at the relevant time.
“NAB did not produce the accused in court, NAB did not seek to have charges framed against them. NAB did not examine a single witness, nor did it tender evidence. NAB also sought innumerable adjournments,” said the ruling.
The bench also said that some media groups, while reporting the proceedings of the case, “violated the parameters of factual reporting, broadcasting and printing views of persons who ware interested in one particular outcome”.
Media should accurately report the proceedings rather than being deliberate on a case still under investigation, said the Bench.
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Rank
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,771
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Nawaz Choor julsi hulsi today at Kot Momin lol “You can not fool the people All the Time” Hahahaha isay ziada loog tu khan ki gari kay aas paas jama hojatay hain
The current population of Kot Momin is btw 75,000-80,000 and over all population of Sargoda is 1.5 Million awaam ka faesla nahi chapaierrr to NS
The current population of Kot Momin is btw 75,000-80,000 and over all population of Sargoda is 1.5 Million awaam ka faesla nahi chapaierrr to NS
Last edited:
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
People here underestimating Nawaz Sharif.
Zibago
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,006
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Attachments
Path-Finder
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 24,393
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Ali Tariq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,749
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Shane
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,459
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
The detailed verdict given by the 3 member bench on Hudaibya appeal is not just hideous but abhorrent and it is not just detestable but loathsome. It is not just appalling but repulsive, as in reeking with animosity against Panama bench and representatives of the usual practice of Sharif mafia appeasement.
The verdict goes to cement the detestable tilt of the judicial verdicts of the past in favour of their political masters who still command considerable grip on the lower and higher courts in the form of the same old, carried forward, reminiscent of and bearers of the legacy, the likes of Malik Qayyums of our Judiciary.
If Hudaibya case does not have enough grounds to be pursued further then RIP Justice System of Pakistan and kudos to the ever black sheep verdicts of our courts. May the sellers of their souls forever rot in hell.
Now that I got that off my chest lets see what seemingly impossible positive can be possibly extracted from this verdict @Arsalan @Farah Sohail @PakSword @El_Swordsmen @QatariPrince @The Accountant and not least @Realistic Change ...the way forward on this case...
I think that if Nawaz can file one appeal/ review after the other on Panama related petitions then why can the other applicants can't do the same? Even the CJ should be approached the same way Nawaz keeps doing even after continuous contempt.
If Nawaz can repeatedly call on CJP in a case that has just one review allowed then what is in the way of Hudaibya case? There is no restrictions on Criminal cases being revisited if new evidence comes to light or brought forward.
The above is about appeal/ review But the thing I want to highlight most is a possible blessing in disguise...Just like Panama bench Justice Khosa, the three judges who gave the verdict against reopening Hudaibya case shouldn't be eligible to sit on another fresh case on Hudaibya, exactly like Justice Khosa verdict rendered him unable to sit in Hudaibya case so should happen to these three if another case is filed on Hudaibya money laundring(not talking about appeal).
What do you think?
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
How can we even compare an honorable person like Justice Khosa to these hudaibya bench judges? Justice Khosa, being the honorable and dignified person that he is, he recused himself from the bench.. there was no legal compulsion on him to do so, but he did it himself..
I am sure these hudaibya judges will want to sit in every case related to hudaibya.....and they will never recuse themselves, if they are included in any bench related to hudaibya case
I agree.. hudaibya verdictis nothing more than an illogical defense of sharifs.. can we imagine.. qazi faez Isa actually said tht hudaibya case was used to pressurise sharif family? LOLL..
And he said tht this case is abt 90s whereas anti money laundering law was passed in 2007.... what does he actually want to say? Tht money laundering was legal in 90s?? like WHAT?? I mean..really?
Qazi Faez Isa also said tht NAB shouldnt be influenced by opinion of JIT ..LOL....
I think Qazi Faez Isa also said tht sharifs were forced into exile..and they always wanted to return to Pak...
Is it a verdict by a SC judge/bench ...or one written by danyal aziz or Talal Chaudhary?
I agree.. something needs to be done.. PTI hsould actively pursue the matter.. PTI should go to SC again, on hudaibya case
maxpayne
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,239
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Courts does not works the way you or me wants. Law says that NAB should present proof and witnesses when filing a case. Instead of providing legal evidences, NAB started bit-ching aien baein shein. Legally NAB lost the case and courts follow law.
As far as I see, you and this madam @farah are using bad words for honorable judges. Atleast you should have some morality to differentiate you from noony tones!
maxpayne
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,239
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
And this madam @farah even didn't bother to reply on my tagged post. I see she does not care about law and constitution, and just want courts to give decision as per her likeness. This is high level of hypocrisy to accept one thing happily from same court and defame the judges when they do not give verdict as per likeness!
Shane
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,459
- Reaction score
- 56
- Country
- Location
Plllllllease!
Since you did fall for the harsh criticism so easily as I had guessed while writing my post, I shall not lecture you on morality in this reply.
Read my post again my friend. I have learned this much observing the way the Sharif crimes syndicate hideously ridicules judiciary personally; only their verdicts can be criticized...and this right is only what I have directly exercised in my post - criticizing the verdict and equating it with the same of the past. Malik Qayyum is a known black sheep of a former Judge and no body can argue with his intentions as to what they were, in favour of his master's as in Sharifs, to whom he had sold his soul and his honourable position as a judge.
As for the part in the verdict putting the blame on NAB for Hudaibya case mishandling, why did these Honourable judges not initiate or order criminal proceedings against those in NAB and the prosecution responsible for "abusing" Sharif family, lol, did they forget or have they suddenly lost their authority all of a sudden? Or a convenient restraint shown in the verdict for something utterly criminal and abusive in the eyes of the same judgement.
What differentiates us from Noony toons is that we call a spade a spade. Remember, according to the law of the land, judgements can be criticised and discussed in public - this is a public forum.
Similar threads
