The PPP chairman on Friday filed the review petition through Advocate Khalid Javed under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules 1980. Bilawal contended that neither he was issued any notice nor summoned or provided any opportunity of hearing before the Supreme Court January 7, 2019 order, whereby certain observations were made and directions issued, while omitting the specific verbal direction to expunge his name from the JIT report.
He contended that in the scheme of governance envisaged by the Constitution wherein verbal orders passed or directions given by different executive authorities including the prime minister, chief ministers and ministers are required to and are actually given effect every day by the governments at all tiers in accordance with the Rules of Business. The PPP chairman submitted that the directions were given by the then Chief Justice of Pakistan (Saqib Nisar) to expunge his name from JIT report in the presence of the parties, their advocates, government functionaries, officers of NAB, FIA and members of JIT, the Attorney General, Advocate General Sindh, the law officers, media and public at large. This direction was reported by the media without any subsequent rebuttal or clarification from any quarter till date, could be completely ignored and not given effect to by JIT, NAB, the government and even by the apex court in its own detailed order passed and released subsequently.
The PPP chairman raised question whether in the view of the admission made on behalf of the JIT and duly recorded by the august court in para 35 of Order whereby the JIT had conceded that the material against him 'may need re-examination to arrive at the correct conclusion', as well as the fact that the applicant's name had been wrongfully included earlier on the Exit Control List, the applicant could not be subjected to further probe, inquiry, investigation by NAB, JIT or any other body. Bilawal expressed fear that he shall be subjected to the degrading treatment in spite of the fact that he never held any public office during the material period and despite there being nothing incriminating found against him by the exhaustive JIT probe.
He also questioned what the principles of law applicable for constituting 'implementation benches' are and if these principles of law were applied to and warranted constitution of the 'implementation bench' in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The review petition objected to the SC directions given in paragraphs 37(v) and (vi) of the court's order as it says that the investigation and trial will take place in Islamabad as opposed to Karachi, where it was originally set to take place.
The petition mentioned that "the said directions are inconsistent with the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the principles relating to territorial jurisdiction, and warrant reconsideration keeping in view the mandate of Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution." The petition also raised objections against the directions given in paragraph 37(ii) and (iii) of the court order that says that the JIT will assist NAB with the case's inquiry. The petition states, "The direction for continuation of the probe by JIT in cases does not conclude without any prescribed time limit warrant review and reconsideration by this Court."
Meanwhile, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) also filed its first progress report, in a sealed envelope on the ongoing investigation in the fake accounts case. The apex court in January had directed the NAB to further investigate the case after the JIT submitted its final report in the fake accounts case. The Sindh government through Advocate General had filed separate review petition, praying the apex court to revise para 37 of the order and directed that the entire record of JIT be submitted to NAB at Karachi and further inquiry, if any, also be conducted at Karachi and that the reference, if any, shall be prepared and presented before the NAB at Karachi.