ISLAMABAD: The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) on Tuesday was granted protective bail by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) after a case was registered against him for allegedly tampering with the record of a company owned by the Sharif family.

IHC Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani granted protective bail to Zafarul Haq Hijazi until July 17 after the submission of Rs10,000 in surety bonds and directed him to approach the special judge (central) to obtain pre-arrest bail.

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had, on Supreme Court orders, lodged an FIR on July 10 against Mr Hijazi for allegedly tampering with the record of Chaudhry Sugar Mills.

But after his hearing, Mr Hijazi dispelled the impression that he was going to resign, and vowed to defend himself against the allegations.

Vows to contest allegations; accuses other officers of implicating him to save their jobs

“I will join the investigation and explain the facts to the investigation agency,” he told reporters.

He also said that he would contest the allegations of tampering with SECP record before the special judge, but avoided commenting on the issue, saying it was a sub judice matter.

The FIR was registered under sections 466 (forgery) and 471 (using of forged documents as genuine) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), read with Section 5(2)47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at FIA’s Special Investigation Unit (SIU) in Islamabad.

In his petition, filed through his counsel Shiekh Zameer Hussain, Mr Hijazi claimed that FIA had not proceeded as it ought to, adding that he had led the life of an honest and upright man without any blemish, yet his prestige and dignity was being put at stake.

The petition gives a brief history of the controversy related to the Sharifs’ sugar mill.

According to the petition, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government tasked SECP in 2011 to probe the affairs of Chaudhary Sugar Mills in connection with money laundering.

The UK’s Central Authority and Financial Services Authority were approached for the requisite information, the counsel said, and a clarification letter was issued to the company in 2011, while proceedings were also initiated under sections 261 and 263 of the Companies Ordinance.

He said that two files were maintained — a money-laundering file and the routine examination file — and the company provided detailed information and documents through its reply in 2012 and 2013, which were found to be satisfactory.

The counsel claimed that FIA did not bother to look into the money-laundering file and took advantage of a discrepancy attributed to the petitioner with mala fide intent, as the date mentioned in the routine examination file was “nothing but an error, which has been wrongly attributed to [the] petitioner”.

The counsel claimed said that all three SECP officers — Abid Hussain, Ali Azeem and Maheen Fatima — agreed that the issue was closed in 2013, yet it is alleged that Mr Hijazi pressurized them in 2016 to add the date note as Jan 14, 2013.

“FIA have failed to explain or examine what benefit the petitioner would derive from such [an] oral order,” he stated.

The counsel argued that the record could have been rectified with a simple note to the effect that although the main file was closed in 2013 but, inadvertently, no order was passed in the routine file and that the omission was being rectified.

Such a note, he added, would have exposed the three officers’ inefficiency and negligence.

“In order to save their skin, they blamed the petitioner for pressurising [them] as they slept over the file without proceeding further for more than three years,” he alleged. In addition, he maintained the three officers had blamed his client in a bid to cover their illegal acts and omissions.

The counsel argued that the officers, being highly-educated and having had sufficient time, did not report the matter to higher authorities in the federal government, adding that there was no evidence on the record to constitute an offence, yet the FIA had registered the case.

Hijazi’s lawyer also argued that at the age of 64, his client was an old man who had undergone a kidney transplant in 2001, developed diabetes mellitus type-2 and needed specialized medicine, adding that his detention in a jail environment would be injurious and dangerous.

Although the counsel sought pre-arrest bail until a final decision in the matter, the court only granted transitory bail until July 17, with directions to appear before the relevant court.

Published in Dawn, July 12th, 2017