NAB receives Ishaq Dar’s written response


ISLAMABAD: Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on Wednesday submitted a written response to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) instead of personally appearing before its team of investigators.
In his letter to NAB, Dar has mentioned his reasons for being unable to appear before the graft watchdog’s team to record his statement and also attached some documents with it.
NAB sources have confirmed that they have received the finance minister’s response in written.
In the letter, Dar has contended that NAB had previously examined both his and his wife’s tax records for 22 years from 1985 to 2007 and found no evidence of assets beyond declared sources of income and closed the inquiry.
The finance minister has submitted the report of the inquiry conducted earlier to NAB.
Besides, officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan also appeared before the NAB and submitted details of the companies owned by Dar’s wife, two sons and daughter-in-law.
There are seven companies –Hajveri Holdings, CNG Pakistan, Spencer Distribution, HDS Securities, Gulf Insurance Company, Spenser Pharmacy, and Hajveri Hodarba Management Company – owned by the finance minister’s relatives.
On August 21, Dar had filed a review petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Panamagate case verdict, claiming that a reference could not be filed against him on the basis of the ‘spurious’ JIT report.
He asked the Supreme Court to recall its July 28 order, stating that the court’s direction is beyond the mandate set in the April 20 judgment. The finance minister added that the SC’s order to nominate a judge to supervise the NAB proceedings is against Articles 175(2) and 203 of the Constitution, which deal with the jurisdictions of courts. Likewise, he pleaded with the SC to stay the NAB proceedings against him till the final order on his review petition
The petitioner also asked why five judges passed the final verdict when only three judges had heard the arguments related to the JIT report, and the other two never heard the arguments nor did they consider the petitioner’s objections.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here