ISLAMABAD: As the Supreme Court resumes on Thursday the hearing in the Bahria Town Karachi case, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Malik Riaz Hussain has pleaded that the amounts remitted from abroad for the benefit of the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd (BTPL) was beyond the scope of the present proceedings pending before the top court.

The applicant has also requested the court to ensure that no prejudice was made to his legal rights, especially when the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was conducting inquiries against the entity on different allegations.

Moved through his counsel Salman Aslam Butt, the fresh application recalled that the apex court had raised queries with respect to the amount remitted from abroad for the benefit of the Bahria Town (Pvt) Ltd (BTPL).

At the last hearing on Nov 8, a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah had ordered the survey of BTPL-Karachi to determine the allegations of encroachment upon forest and private land.

Click to see more

An SC implementation bench had earlier in 2019 accepted the developer’s offer to pay Rs460 billion for the purchase of the land measuring 16,896 acres in the Malir Develop­ment Authority, but with certain terms and conditions. On Oct 20 this year, the Supreme Court noted that “only Rs60.72bn out of Rs460bn was paid. Even out of this payment, Bahria Town paid only Rs24.26bn”.

Through a fresh application, Malik Riaz contended that NAB was investigating different aspects of the case in relation to the amounts remitted and their utilisation for the benefit of BTPL.

In this regard different notices have already been issued by NAB to BTPL’s representatives as well as its CEO Malik Riaz. These notices are being responded to in accordance with law as well as the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the reply explained.

Referring to the amounts remitted from abroad for the benefit of BTPL, the application explained, the issue was beyond the scope of the present proceedings, being undertaken by the Supreme Court and thus was a matter in respect of which no separate proceedings under Article 184 (3) as contemplated by law could be initiated.

While exercising suo motu jurisdiction, the application submitted, the apex court must ensure that the process of investigation in a matter or authority of the adjudicatory forums was not undermined, as the same will amount to prejudicing the rights of the parties concerned.

These principles find their roots in the settled jurisprudence and fundamental rights and postulates that an accused is the favourite child of law; presumption of innocence is there till conviction; and a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against itself, it argued.

Published in Dawn, November 23rd, 2023