–Accountability watchdog set to seek extension in NA Opp leader’s physical remand on Monday
LAHORE: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Lahore on Saturday initiated an inquiry against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Shehbaz Sharif for owning assets beyond his known sources of income.
NAB will also seek an extension in Shehbaz’s remand on October 29.
During the investigation in the Aashiana Housing Scheme case, Shehbaz had registered a statement that his son Salman was the guardian of his financial matters.
NAB had initiated a case of assets beyond income against Salman and had constituted a committee to probe the matter. After progress was achieved in the investigation, NAB decided to initiate an inquiry against Shehbaz for owning assets beyond known sources of income.
However, sources said that the former Punjab chief minister has so far feigned ignorance regarding most of the things asked.
Shehbaz is currently in NAB custody and is serving a physical remand in Aashiana scam case.
The accountability bureau arrested Shehbaz in the Ashiana Iqbal housing scheme case on Oct 6. He had appeared before NAB to record his statement in the Punjab Saaf Pani Company case.
Shehbaz was arrested after Fawad Hasan Fawad, the then implementation secretary, told NAB that he carried out corrupt activities in projects in Punjab on orders from Shehbaz, who was the chief minister then. NAB had also received information from Fawad Hasan’s laptop, from which data was retrieved after his arrest.
A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the Shehbaz arrest by NAB in the case.
The petition was filed by AK Dogar on behalf of the Pakistan Lawyers Foundation. The division bench comprising Justice Najafi and Justice Anwarul Haq Pannun observed that the petitioner had no locus standi to agitate the matter before the court.
He argued that no person could be kept in custody without informing him about the grounds relating to his arrest and such grounds could only be established after completion of an investigation.
The lawyer also argued that the arrest of a person during investigation and trial was inconsistent under Article 10(1) of the Constitution.