ISLAMABAD, Oct 29: The accountability court of Islamabad issued on Tuesday a notice to former president Asif Ali Zardari on five corruption references, asking him to appear at the next hearing on Nov 26.

Former law minister Advocate Farooq H. Naek who appeared on behalf of Mr Zardari, received the notice.

He told the judge, Mohammad Bashir, court notices could not be delivered to Mr Zardari because he was abroad.

On Oct 11, the court had taken up the references relating to receipt of kickbacks amounting to six per cent of the total value of $131 million of a pre-shipment inspection contract awarded to a Swiss company, Cotecna; kickbacks from Société Générale de Surveillance, a pre-shipment inspection company; grant of licence to ARY Gold which caused a huge loss to the national exchequer and receipt of illegal gratification and commission in the purchase of Russian tractors under the Awami Tractor Scheme.

The references, prepared by the NAB, were closed after the promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance by former president Pervez Musharraf in 2007. But they stood revived after the Supreme Court declared the NRO void ab initio in Dec 2009.

Opinion

Editorial

Impending slaughter
Updated 07 May, 2024

Impending slaughter

Seven months into the slaughter, there are no signs of hope.
Wheat investigation
07 May, 2024

Wheat investigation

THE Shehbaz Sharif government is in a sort of Catch-22 situation regarding the alleged wheat import scandal. It is...
Naila’s feat
07 May, 2024

Naila’s feat

IN an inspirational message from the base camp of Nepal’s Mount Makalu, Pakistani mountaineer Naila Kiani stressed...
Plugging the gap
06 May, 2024

Plugging the gap

IN Pakistan, bias begins at birth for the girl child as discriminatory norms, orthodox attitudes and poverty impede...
Terrains of dread
Updated 06 May, 2024

Terrains of dread

Restored faith in the police is unachievable without political commitment and interprovincial support.
Appointment rules
Updated 06 May, 2024

Appointment rules

If the judiciary had the power to self-regulate, it ought to have exercised it instead of involving the legislature.