ISLAMABAD: As the opposition demands an investigation into the Panama leaks and the Sharif family’s offshore companies, little attention is being paid to the Pakistani state’s poor record in such inquiries. Indeed, to provide some insight as to what an investigation into the latest scandal will yield, Dawn looks at by three high-profile cases that rocked the fragile PPP government around five years ago: the Haj scandal, the ephedrine scam and the Ogra case.

All three implicated top members of the government, including prime ministers and their family members as well as cabinet ministers. But despite the PML-N coming into power, there has been no major headway in any of these cases, which are beset by a lack of evidence, improper investigations and procedural lacunae.

How the high-profile Ogra scam became a ‘complicated’ case

About five years ago, a corruption case involving Rs82 billion was in the headlines.

As a story, it just couldn’t get better. Both PPP-nominated prime ministers were accused of involvement. The main accused, a former chairman of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), fled the country, but was brought back to Pakistan under pressure from the dogged pursuance of the case by the Supreme Court.

Two years later, in 2013, the trial commenced in the accountability court.

However, the case is still far from reaching any logical end. Ask those involved and it seems the case is so ‘complicated’ that it still needs more time; critics say this complication is “due to the ‘over-excitement’ of the investigation officer”.

This is why, both sides point out, that not a single witness out of the over 90 prosecution witnesses has been examined by the trial court so far.

Eleven people, including former prime ministers Raja Pervez Ashraf and Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani were accused in the case.

The Ogra corruption case came into the limelight in 2011 when an executive director of the authority challenged the appointment of Tauqeer Sadiq as chairman.

On Nov 25, 2012, the apex court struck down the appointment of Sadiq, who then fled to the UAE.

He went abroad secretly, perhaps panicked by the happenings in the courtroom, where the bench had been told that Sadiq was a close relative of PPP leader Jahangir Badar and was allegedly appointed in an illegal manner.

Besides his ‘controversial’ appointment, Sadiq was also facing allegations of causing Rs82 billion in losses to the public exchequer. However, he was apprehended in Dubai and then extradited to Pakistan in July 2013.

NAB filed two references: one relating to the illegal appointment of Sadiq as Ogra chairman in 2009, and another relating to corruption and irregularities in the organisation during his tenure. These references were filed in the accountability court in 2013, while the Supreme Court was also hearing the matter.

Sadiq is accused of making illegal appointments in Ogra; manipulating the share prices of gas distribution companies; increasing the benchmark of the unaccounted-for-gas (UFG); allowing new CNG stations and relocating existing filling stations.

Insiders blame untrained investigation officer; both sides accuse each other of delaying proceedings

According to the charge sheet issued by the accountability court, Sadiq is accused of manipulating the market to raise the share prices cost of Sui Northern (SNGPL) and Sui Southern (SSGC) from Rs19 to Rs45, before they fell back to the original price. It was alleged that he was in touch with some investors who purchased the shares before the rise in price and made a killing.

Examine: Officials named in Ogra scam still in office

Similarly, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) accuses Tauqeer Sadiq of having issued over 500 licenses for CNG stations in exchange for Rs300,000 each.

NAB investigators say that by increasing the benchmark of UFG from 5pc to 7pc (a tax charged to gas consumers) – while consumers had to cough up the money – he increased the profit of the gas distribution companies, but reduced federal government taxes. The UFG is, in fact, the loss the system suffers on account of leakages or gas theft.

Three years after NAB filed the references against Sadiq, proceedings haven’t moved beyond the initial stages. The only witness currently being examined is Mohammad Yasin, an executive director, who was also the petitioner against Sadiq before the Supreme Court

From an audit point of view, the safe limit for UFG is less than 5pc. This means that 5pc gas was being wasted and the Sadiq-led Ogra justified the wastage of another 2pc. UFG reflects negligence on the part of the distribution companies, which can be reduced by removing illegal connections, overcoming leakages and introducing an efficient recovery mechanism. This why audit authorities show UFG as system losses in their books and any increase in the UFG benchmark multiplies losses.

On Mar 12, 2014, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) granted bail to Sadiq against two surety bonds worth Rs1 million each – he is free at the moment.

But three years after NAB filed the references against Sadiq, proceedings haven’t moved beyond the initial stages. The only witness currently being examined is Mohammad Yasin, an executive director, who was also the petitioner against Sadiq before the Supreme Court.

A former deputy prosecutor general of NAB, who had dealt with the Ogra corruption case, told Dawn that the investigation officer was not well-trained and had complicated the case unnecessarily.

“This is NAB’s dilemma with most of its investigation officers, who are not well-trained enough to investigate the high-profile cases they are assigned,” he said.

According to him, the inexperienced investigation officers are influenced by the remarks of judges and the orders of their superiors.

Referring to the Ogra corruption case, he said that it was difficult to prove that Sadiq had embezzled Rs82 billion. According to the NAB official, the main chunk of the alleged amount is derived from the increase in the UFG benchmark. But Arshad Tabrez, a defence counsel in the Ogra corruption reference, claimed that the investigation agency had relied upon hearsay evidence and lacked tangible evidence to prove the alleged embezzlement.

Amjad Iqbal Qureshi, who represents former premiers Ashraf and Gillani in the case, claimed that the corruption case was “politically-motivated”.

He admitted that there might be some irregularities in Sadiq’s appointment, but it could not be termed illegal. He also claimed that since their evidence was weak, the prosecution was not interested in expediting the case.

But Mohammad Yasin, the petitioner in the case against Sadiq before the Supreme Court, believes that the evidence against the accused is solid.

In his view, the accused are causing the delay. “The accountability court holds proceedings at regular intervals, but the accused keep changing their lawyers,” he said.

Echoing the view that the case is “complicated”, NAB Director General Zahir Shah said it took several months to indict the accused because Sadiq and another suspect had gone missing.

He said that the testimony of the first witness was taking time as he is being cross-examined by the lawyers of all 11 accused.

“Being an executive director at Ogra and the petitioner in the Tauqeer Sadiq appointment case, he is a star witness. As a result, each lawyer is taking time with the cross examination.”

Why no one was convicted for the 2009 Haj scandal

Between 2010 and 2012, the Haj corruption scandal rocked the national political scene and led to the departure of both Hamid Saeed Kazmi and Azam Swati from the federal cabinet.

The former also spent nearly two years in prison over charges of irregularities in the 2009 Haj operation.

But the much hyped matter is rarely mentioned anymore and its proceedings have become very routine, like most other court cases.

When it first erupted, the case caused quite a storm, souring ties between the PPP and JUI-F. The sudden removal of Azam Swati from the cabinet annoyed Maulana Fazalur Rehman, who expressed his displeasure publicly.

The scandal surfaced in 2010 after Swati, then-minister for science and technology, accused the religious affairs minister Hamid Saeed Kazmi of corruption. The Supreme Court then took suo moto notice and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) was assigned to probe the allegations.

According to the charge sheet issued to Kazmi, DG Haj Rao Shakeel and Raja Aftabul Islam, a former joint secretary ministry of religious affairs, the men were indicted for fraud, cheating, misuse of authority, and causing losses to the national exchequer and the public at large.

They were charged under sections 109, 409, 420, 468, 471 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and 5(2) 1947 of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

Read: Gilani`s son accused of being involved in Haj scam

Specifically, they were accused of hiring a substandard building on exorbitant rent (for housing the pilgrims in Mecca) and receiving kickbacks in the process.

Prosecutors blame weak evidence; Kazmi continues to maintain his innocence

The scandal even threatened to taint then-prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani as FIA implicated his son Abdul Qadir, who was also an MNA, in the Haj corruption case. The FIA alleged, based on testimony by former PML-N lawmaker Syed Imran Ahmed Shah that Abdul Qadir had received a luxury bullet-proof Land Cruiser from Rao Shakeel Ahmed.

However, a year and a half later, in 2012, the PML-N man backtracked and Gilani was acquitted.

Originally, the MNA had alleged that Zain Iftikhar Sukhera, a close friend of Abdul Qadir, went to Saudi Arabia on Jul 18, 2010 and met Rao Shakeel to receive the vehicle.

The vehicle was “reportedly smuggled through the Karachi port and was secretly offloaded from a truck at Sahiwal”.

In return, Mr Sukhera was awarded toll plaza and road construction contracts by the National Highways Authority, Mr Shah had alleged in his statement.

In a supplementary statement, recorded on Dec 29, 2010, Mr Shah claimed that Rao Shakeel was a classmate of Yousaf Raza Gillani. Abdul Qadir denied these allegations, chalking them up to political rivalries.

After Gillani was absolved of charges in 2012, Kazmi was released on bail as well.

The Supreme Court’s suo moto was then disposed in December 2013 with directions to the FIA to thoroughly investigate the case and root out corruption from the pilgrimage in the future.

Four years on, the case has reached its conclusion in an FIA special court. In background conversations, officials admit that politicians might not be convicted.

One official, who cannot speak on the record, claims that the “allegations against Abdul Qadir were not correct and this is why he was not nominated in the challan”.

According to the official, “The evidence against Hamid Saeed Kazmi is also weak, which is why he was able to secure bail in 2012.”

So far, all the accused, including Rao Shakeel, Aftabul Islam and Ahmed Faiz (Kazmi’s alleged front-man who is accused of taking kickbacks during the process of hiring the ‘substandard’ buildings for pilgrims) have been released on bail.

Kazmi, though, continues to profess his innocence. He told Dawn that the then-ambassador to Saudi Arabia wanted to hire out the buildings for the pilgrims, a responsibility that usually rests with the Haj ministry.

He told Dawn that in 2009, months before the Haj, Pakistan’s embassy in Saudi Arabia wrote to the cabinet division and suggested that instead of the directorate general Haj, the embassy hire the buildings. “But the suggestion was rejected,” claimed Kazmi.

He also claimed that Swati wanted a JUI-F man to replace him.

“The case damaged my political career,” he said.

The FIA had produced 53 witnesses, including officials working in the directorate of Haj in Jeddah, officials from the ministry of Religious Affairs and employees of the Pakistani embassy in Jeddah.

Most of the evidence produced in court is related to transactions Rao Shakeel made through his subordinates.

For example, Mohammad Mushtaq, a prosecution witness, had testified that he had worked with Rao Shakeel as a stenographer and transferred 25,000 riyals to his accounts. Mohammad Aslam, a cashier at Pakistan’s mission in Jeddah, also told the court that he transferred 10,000 riyals to the accounts of Shakeel’s relative.

The evidence also includes different orders and the observations of the Supreme Court, which it passed from time to time during the hearing of suo moto case and statement of Mr Swati as well as other government officials.

FIA Special Prosecutor Mohammad Azhar Chaudhry, however, maintained that as the minister of Religious Affairs, Kazmi was supposed to implement the Haj policy in letter and spirit.

He said Kazmi visited the buildings before the Haj began and was aware that they were under construction and were not inhabitable.

According to Chaudhry, the government policy mandated that the buildings be no further than 200 metres from the places of worship, but that Rao Shakeel, in connivance with the minister and other ministry officials hired far-flung buildings that lacked the required facilities.

Ephedrine scam: the case that wasn’t there

The ephedrine case, which rocked the PPP government some five years ago, still hasn’t moved forward.

Legal experts attribute this delay to a ‘half-baked’ investigation and the flawed legal strategy of the Anti Narcotics Force (ANF).

The ephedrine case dates from March 2011, when then-federal minister Makhdum Shahabuddin, told the National Assembly that a thorough investigation would be held into the alleged illegal allocation of 9000kg of ephedrine to two pharmaceutical companies: Berlex and Danas. Under the rules, a company cannot get more than 500kg of ephedrine.

The statement was enough to attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry began hearing the case and in early 2012 he pointed out that Ali Musa Gillani, son of then-prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, was also a suspect.

The ANF had issued notices to Musa and one of his alleged ‘front men’ for manipulating the unauthorised allocation.

See: Director of medicine firm implicates Shahabuddin, Musa in ephedrine scam

In June of the same year, just as President Asif Ali Zardari nominated Makhdoom Shahabuddin as the PPP candidate for the prime minister after Yousaf Raza Gillani was removed by a court order, the ANF issued arrest warrants in his name. Consequently, Makhdoom Shahab could no longer be PPP’s prime ministerial candidate.

The key evidence against him was a statement by Rasheed Juma, the former director general of health. Juma was the main accused in the case as he allocated the quota to pharmaceutical companies. But turning approver against the minister, he alleged that the allocations were made on Shahab’s verbal orders.

Prosecutors say govt doesn’t check for adequate evidence before instituting cases

According to defence lawyer Abdul Rashid Sheikh, there was nothing apart from Juma’s testimony to prove these allegations. He said that the main accused could not shift responsibility onto others.

The trail court for control of narcotic substances (CNS) moved so quickly in the matter that it also attached the properties of Makhdoom Shahab at ANF’s request, in 2012.

In February 2013, about two and half months after the registration of an FIR, ANF submitted the final challan in the CNS court, but the trial could not commence for one reason or another.

The delay was partly because Makhdoom Shahab and Musa Gillani, as well as the owners of pharmaceutical companies, filed a number of petitions in the CNS court and then in the Lahore High Court (LHC) against the trial. All this caused a delay of about four years.

In the meantime, ANF prosecutor general Shahid Abbasi moved out after being appointed an additional judge in the LHC. Some key civilian and military officials who were dealing with the case also retired or were transferred.

With the passage of time, judicial proceedings slowed to a crawl as those who were initially pursuing the case lost interest.

Finally, on November 27, 2014, an LHC division bench consisting of Justice Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmed and Justice Ali Baqir Najafi disposed of a petition filed by Makhdoom Shahab related to the jurisdiction of CNS court in Rawalpindi, holding that “the learned special court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter”.

The evidence against Makhdoom Shahab was a statement by Rasheed Juma, the main accused in the case. But turning approver against the minister, he alleged that the allocations were made on Shahab’s verbal orders

Current ANF prosecutor general Raja Inam Ameen Minhas told Dawn they had challenged the orders before the Supreme Court, where the matter was currently pending.

However, he said ANF would resume proceedings as soon as the case was decided by the apex court, insisting that the CNS court in Rawalpindi did have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

According to advocate Abdul Rasheed Sheikh, who is the defence counsel for Makhdoom Shahab, ANF could have filed a case in the CNS court in Multan, where the ephedrine was sold, or in Islamabad where it was allocated by the officials of the devolved health ministry, but not Rawalpindi.

In subsequent proceedings, the trial court returned all court documents to the ANF with a direction to file them before a court of “competent jurisdiction”. Hence, the case is basically back where it had started.

“Technically speaking, after the court returned the case file to the prosecution agency, there is no case against Makhdoom Shahab and Musa Gillani and the other accused,” claimed Advocate Rasheed Sheikh, counsel for Makhdoom Shahab.

Advocate Sheikh then filed another petition in the LHC for the possession of his client’s assets, arguing that no case was pending against his client in any CNS court. Ironically, this petition came up before Justice Shahid Abbasi’s case, who had investigated this case as ANF prosecutor general. Each time, Abbasi recused himself.

Former Punjab additional prosecutor general Punjab Mohammad Ishaq Hinjra told Dawn that such cases expose the flaws in the investigation and prosecution strategies.

He said that in the West, it was the prosecution that decided the fate of a case; whether it could be instituted before the court or dropped. “The prosecution in other countries gives its opinion after thoroughly examining the evidence, the facts of the case and investigation reports. If there is a strong possibility of losing the case, the prosecution can decide against pressing charges,” he explained. Under our Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Prosecution Act, the prosecution has been empowered to give such opinion but it is not heard, he said.

“Here, cases are instituted and the accused are implicated at the sweet will of the government or the department concerned,” he said. “As an additional prosecutor general, when I pointed out the weakness of certain cases and suggested that they were ‘not fit for trial’ I was asked to ‘mind my own business’; I was told that it was the court’s job to decide which case is fit for trial or not.”

Published in Dawn, April 11th, 2016