SC expresses concern over removal of names from ECL in 'perceived interference' suo motu case

[MenInG]

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the removal of names from the Exit Control List (ECL) and questioned the procedure for doing so as it heard a suo motu case on apprehensions that criminal justice might be undermined by people in positions of authority.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, are hearing the case.

The notice was taken on May 18 amidst allegations levelled by the PTI that soon after coming to power, the present coalition government allegedly started influencing different cases and transferring investigators or officers supervising cases, especially related to corruption allegations.

During the last hearing, the court had restrained the relevant authorities from transfers, postings or removals of those involved in the investigation or prosecution of high-profile cases against top government functionaries pending in the courts of special judge (central) and the accountability courts.

It also issued notices to the interior secretary, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman/regional directors, prosecutors general and advocates general in the provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and the head of prosecution branch in the FIA and NAB.

When the hearing resumed today, Chief Justice Bandial observed that changes had been made to the ECL Rules on April 22, 2022 and the names of those involved in corruption and tax theft of Rs10 million were removed from it.

Justice Ahsan questioned how the change could be applied retroactively, while Justice Akhtar asked whether the Cabinet Division notification about the change in rules mentioned that they could be applied to names added in the past.

"Who benefitted from the rules?" asked Justice Naqvi.

Justice Akhtar also observed that the approval of the change in rules by a cabinet member who was facing cases would be a conflict of interest. He asked for details of which cabinet members had benefitted to be submitted to the court.

He went on to observe that a member who was facing charges could have "disassociated" himself from the changes.

The CJP noted that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had said it was not consulted prior to the removal of 174 names from the ECL.

The chief justice asked Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf to read section 2 of the ECL Rules, 2010, which is related to grounds to prohibit persons from proceeding from Pakistan to a destination outside the country.

"According to the rules, [those facing cases related to] corruption, terrorism, tax evaders and loan defaulters cannot go abroad. On whose asking did the cabinet amend the rules related to tax evaders and [those suspected of] corruption?" he questioned.

The attorney general said he would present the minutes of the cabinet meeting to approve the changes.

Justice Ahsan asked whether names would automatically be removed from the ECL after 120 days, to which the attorney general replied in the affirmative.

'How can cabinet members remove names for benefit?'
Justice Naqvi observed that cabinet members had also benefitted from the rules. "How can they introduce amendments for their personal benefit?"

Justice Akhtar questioned whether there was a mechanism whereby a minister facing a case would not receive a related file. "We know that there are only allegations against federal ministers yet. [But] they should not sit in such meetings themselves."

Justice Ahsan asked whether such changes could be brought about through a circulation summary, adding that it was the cabinet's duty to make a decision after reviewing each case.

Chief Justice Bandial iterated that NAB had said names were removed from the ECL without informing the anti-graft watchdog.

Suo motu
The CJP had taken suo motu notice on the recommendations of a SC judge on perceived interference in the independence of the prosecution branch in the performance of its power and duties for investigation and prosecution of pending criminal matters involving persons in authority in government.

According to a press release issued by the apex court, such interference could influence the prosecution of cases, result in tampering or disappearance of evidence in courts or in possession of prosecuting agencies and lead to transfers and postings of officers on key posts.

The press release said that such actions, along with "media reports" about changes in accountability laws, were likely to "undermine" the functioning of the country's criminal justice system.

"That [is tantamount] to violation of fundamental rights affecting the society as a whole and eroding [of] the confidence of the people in the rule of law and constitutionalism in the country," it added.

The SC press release did not indicate which "pending criminal matters" it was referring to. However, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is currently pursuing a money laundering case against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz, whose indictment has been delayed since February.

The notice also comes amid allegations levelled by the PTI that soon after coming into power, the present coalition government allegedly started influencing different cases and transferring investigators or officers supervising cases, especially related to corruption allegations.

It is also pertinent to mention here that key figures from within the allied parties of the new government have called for either complete dissolution of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or amendments to the corruption watchdog's laws.

The National Assembly approved a bill related to those amendments a day earlier.

DAWN

 

[Extra_Cover]

These suo motu notices are bound to happen given the bulldozing of many doubtful practices. I can also see a suo motu coming up on not allowing overseas pakistani to vote.

I can also see SC issuing blatant orders that next march of IK would see no containers/road blocks or force use. There is a possibility before next march Hamza would be gone so IK would have Punjab machinery as well to his use. All this time will tell.

 

[MenInG]

Seems our judges are opening their eyes - should have stopped the chor fest in London when they had the chance.

 

[MenInG]

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Friday observed that cabinet members have no constitutional immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution, therefore, criminal cases against them should proceed.

The chief justice is heading a five-member bench after he took the suo motu notice over the alleged political interference in the working of prosecution and investigation in graft cases against the highest officeholders, especially PM Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz.

The bench also summoned DG FIA and the Director Law Usman Gondal in a matter related to the transfer of a prosecutor in the money laundering case against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

"Let DG FIA and director law come for assistance on the next date of hearing," said CJP Bandial.

The bench expressed dissatisfaction over the removal of prosecutor Sikander Zulqarnain, who was pursuing the money laundering case against the premier.

The chief justice said that there is an impression that the prosecutor was removed in order to halt the ongoing trial and added that although the apex court does not want to push the proceedings, they should not be halted either.

During the hearing, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan commented on DG FIA's report and said the facts are twisted in order to justify the removal of the prosecutor.

Justice Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi asked whether charges have been framed in the money laundering case in which the prime minister is accused.

The bench has also expressed serious concern over the cabinet's decision regarding the removal of hundreds of accused names from the Exit Control List (ECL).

During the hearing, Justice Bandial asked the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) to read the Section II of the ECL Rules 2010. According to the rules, corruption accused, tax defaulters, terrorism suspects and loan defaulters could not fly out of the country, Justice Bandial added.

“On whose directions, did the cabinet amend the clauses regarding corruption and tax default,” Justice Bandial asked. “Did the federal cabinet give approval of these rules,” he inquired.

To which, AGP Ashtar Ausaf said he would present the minutes of the cabinet meeting as well.

Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi observed that the members of the cabinet benefitted from these amendments. He asked how could the cabinet members make amendments for their own benefit.

The chief justice also noted that NAB was not consulted before the removal of the accused involved in corruption cases.

“Is it not a conflict of interest for the cabinet to amend the rules when the names of the cabinet members themselves were in the ECL? Justice Naqvi asked.

The bench further asked whether the ministers who were beneficiaries of the rules being changed, in regards to the ECL, were part of making that change.

The AGP sought time to give details related to the cabinet's decision.

'Concerned with system'

During the hearing, PM Shehbaz Sharif’s lawyer Irfan Qadir said he would satisfy the law and the conscience through his arguments. He asked the court to give him a set of questions so he could assist in a better manner.

Justice Bandial said that the court was not looking for his assistance as the case did not concern an individual but the system.

Qadir said there was an ongoing political confrontation between two political parties and between them is this court. Perception should not be created that the apex court was being embroiled in politics, he added.

The judges then left the courtroom without dictating any order.

Express Tribune

 

[MenInG]

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the federal government to bring the recent changes in the rules of the Exit Control List (ECL) within the "ambit of the law" within a week, cautioning that it would issue an order if its directive was not followed.

On April 22, the government introduced significant changes to the rules controlling citizens' exit from the country in an attempt to end the practice of keeping people on the no-fly list for years and even for over a decade, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah had said.

A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, had taken suo motu notice on apprehensions that criminal justice might be undermined by people in authority.

In a written order issued earlier this week, the SC had observed that it appeared the amendments in the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Rules of 2010 had been enforced with retrospective effect.

"This appears to have been done without the authorisation necessary for giving such an effect to amendments in the rules," it had said.

When the hearing resumed today, Chief Justice Bandial said the government should take adequate steps to bring the amendments within the ambit of the law. "We do not want to interfere in executive powers right now."

At the start of the hearing, the CJP grilled Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf about the process to remove names from the ECL.

Ausaf said freedom of movement and to travel abroad were constitutional rights of every citizen and a person's name could not be put on the ECL simply because of ongoing investigations by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

The federal government analyses a person's right to freedom of movement and the allegations levelled against him before putting his name on the ECL, he informed the court.

"The government amended the ECL rules after fulfilling all legal aspects. The cabinet has written that the amendments will be applied retroactively. Amendment of ECL Rules is at the discretion of the federal government."

He told the court that cabinet members' names were removed from the ECL so the government could function smoothly. "There is no law that states discussion with NAB is necessary for removing the names."

'Govt freed person court instructed to be jailed'
The chief justice remarked that the court was aware the government had "freed" a person it had instructed to be jailed, without naming that person. When the attorney general argued that the reference against the said person was from 2018, the CJP noted the SC's order was from 2021.

However, AGP Ausaf contended that the court's orders had been implemented but the person was freed after the case was concluded.

Justice Bandial said if an agency was investigating someone, the government should hold discussions with it prior to removing the person's name from the ECL.

When the attorney general said names were put on the ECL on NAB's instructions, the chief justice said it meant the anti-graft watchdog considered the matter prior to issuing instructions.

"NAB does not put every suspect's name on the ECL. According to NAB, the names of people who looted billions were removed."

Ausaf argued that NAB could request re-adding a person's name to the ECL. "NAB would refer [again] only if it knew of the removal. The name of a suspect, who the SC directed [to be put on ECL], was also removed," the CJP said.

Justice Naqvi observed that it would have been better for the government to look at each case individually.

Justice Bandial said the court desired that justice be done with everyone through implementation of the law. He also questioned why the changes were applied retroactively.

However, the attorney general denied that the purpose was to benefit specific people.

'How can decisions be taken for personal benefit?'

Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar asked whether an amendment should be carried out if the relatives and friends of those who were doing it benefitted from it.

He also asked why there was a hurry to remove names from the ECL.

"There is no mention of the amendments being applied from past dates. How can ministers whose names are on the ECL decide to remove them?"

"The court included Khawaja Saad Rafique's name [on the list]," CJP Bandial pointed out to which the attorney general replied that Rafique was not present in the cabinet meeting that approved the amendments.

"According to the record, Khawaja Saad Rafique has approved the [amended] rules. Should ministers not have kept themselves separate from the matter?" Justice Akhtar questioned.

"How can one take a government decision for personal benefit? Is there a code of conduct for ministers regarding personal cases?"

The AGP replied that as per the code of conduct, a personal case was not sent to the minister concerned. At this, Justice Akhtar questioned why the code of conduct was not implemented.

However, the attorney general argued whether the cabinet could not take any decision if the prime minister's name was on the ECL.

"It would be appropriate that such a cabinet be formed in which nobody's name is on the ECL," Justice Akhtar remarked.

The chief justice said the court was not hearing the case to punish anyone.

Justice Akhtar asked who had decided that the amendments would be applied retroactively, to which the AGP replied that the decision was made by a subcommittee.

Meanwhile, Justice Naqvi observed that there was no justification for the ECL after the government's stance that the freedom to travel was a constitutional right.

"In my opinion, the ECL should not exist," the AGP responded. However, the chief justice said the court would not look at personal opinions in the case.

"Honesty, fairness and transparency should be taken into consideration while exercising powers," he added.

CJP's remarks on justice system
DG FIA Tahir Rai, who had been summoned by the court, said eight people, including PPP's Sharjeel Memon, had travelled abroad and not returned afterwards.

The chief justice pointed out that dates were not written correctly in the FIA's list for names on ECL, adding that it pained him when a prosecutor, during the hearing of a case, said that he was unable to find the record.

"It has been happening in NAB cases that record could not be found. If there is no material, that is a separate matter.

"The court is concerned with independent investigation and trial. It should not happen that the [evidence] is available but witnesses are silenced. NAB should take back cases in which it does not have evidence."

Justice Bandial continued that shoddy work on the prosecution's side had a negative effect on the case. The justice system needed to be improved, he added.

"It is wrong to say that Pakistan's judiciary is ranked 128th. Pakistan's ranking was determined on perception, not data."

No innocent person should remain in jail, the CJP said, observing that "wrong" decisions were overturned by the higher courts.

"Ninety per cent of verdicts are upheld in the higher courts. It has to be seen whether those convicted of heinous crimes can be pardoned."

Court asks for record of high-profile cases
The chief justice directed the DG FIA to inform the court if someone tried to forcibly get a case registered. "You are a civil servant. Do not accept anyone's interference. If someone puts pressure on you, inform the court [and] you will be given protection."

The court directed the FIA and the NAB to submit copies of records of all high-profile cases, along with evidence.

The bench also said that the FIA could change officials other than the investigation officers and prosecutors.

The prosecutor general said the court's directives could be implemented only after the new chairman NAB's appointment. The court then directed that it be informed if any pressure was exerted on NAB.

The chief justice said the court expected the government to appoint the new chairman after consideration. "We are keeping an eye on the matter and expect good from the government. We expect that a clean, honest, capable and reputable person will be appointed as chairman NAB."

He also directed the anti-graft watchdog to ensure it was not used for "revenge".

Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till next week.

Suo motu
The CJP had taken suo motu notice on the recommendations of a SC judge on perceived interference in the independence of the prosecution branch in the performance of its power and duties for investigation and prosecution of pending criminal matters involving persons in authority in government.

According to a press release issued by the apex court, such interference could influence the prosecution of cases, result in tampering or disappearance of evidence in courts or in possession of prosecuting agencies and lead to transfers and postings of officers on key posts.

The press release said that such actions, along with "media reports" about changes in accountability laws, were likely to "undermine" the functioning of the country's criminal justice system.

"That [is tantamount] to violation of fundamental rights affecting the society as a whole and eroding [of] the confidence of the people in the rule of law and constitutionalism in the country," it added.

The SC press release did not indicate which "pending criminal matters" it was referring to. However, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is currently pursuing a money laundering case against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shehbaz, whose indictment has been delayed since February.

The notice also comes amid allegations levelled by the PTI that soon after coming into power, the present coalition government allegedly started influencing different cases and transferring investigators or officers supervising cases, especially related to corruption allegations.

The National Assembly and the Senate passed the NAB (Second Amendment) Bill 2021 last month, clipping the vast powers of the anti-graft watchdog.

DAWN

 

[MenInG]

The Supreme Court on Thursday raised questions on the amendments to the rules related to the Exit Control List (ECL).

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, issued an order while hearing the suo motu case regarding alleged executive interference in high-profile cases.

The order read, "Having considered the amendments at some length with the assistance of the learned Attorney General, it seems to us, prima facie, that they are prospective in nature.”

It stated, “The retrospective effect given to them appears to have been done without due and proper application of mind to the relevant principles of law and statutory interpretation, and that this may therefore not be in accordance with law.”

The order added that Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf had attempted to argue that at the cabinet committee stage, there was an intention that the amendments would provide for retrospectivity and it was on such basis that the concerned department or ministry had applied them.

"This aspect of the matter is however not duly reflected in the record. The learned attorney general also undertakes to coordinate with all concerned ministries/departments in order to ensure that the apparent problems identified and pointed out by the court in the procedure adopted in constitution of the cabinet sub-committee as well as in the mode and manner in which the recommendations were circulated amongst the cabinet members will be addressed and, in particular, those members of the cabinet who stand to benefit from the amendments in question will recuse themselves from consideration thereof as is apparently required by the ministerial code of conduct.”

The court noted that the position had been taken that the amendments to the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 framed under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 had a retrospective effect in view of the fact that they conferred certain benefits.

“We note that the entire exercise of amending the rules, starting with the reconstitution of the cabinet committee which had been constituted for the purpose of recommending amendments to the notification of the amendments and they thereupon being given immediate effect, has been dealt with on a highly accelerated timeline over a course of only two days.”

The order read that the judges on the bench had noted that the summary of the proposal made by the committee had purportedly been approved through circulation among cabinet members, some of whom were present in Islamabad while others were not available.

"In this context, [a] reference has been made to Rules 17 and 19 of the Rules of Business, 1973 to contend that the said rules envisage that where a member of the cabinet does not express any opinion, the summary will be deemed to have been approved by him.”

The judges noted that on a query from the court, it had been admitted by the attorney general that the ministerial code of conduct provided for the recusal of cabinet members, who may have a conflict of interest or stand to receive a benefit on the basis of a summary.

“In this situation it is unclear from the record how the summary could have been approved expressly or by the aforenoted implication by members of the cabinet whose names existed on the ECL and who clearly stood to benefit from the amendments in question.”

The judges also noted that neither any structure was provided to examine and assess each case on its own merits nor was any such exercise admittedly undertaken.

“It appears that the amendments have been structured to result in the automatic removal of a person's name from the ECL after the stipulated period, and even otherwise an unbridled discretionary power has been given to the concerned ministry/functionaries to remove the names of persons at their own whim without reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The order read that the bench had asked the AGP whether, if as contended by him that the amendments had retrospective effect was the correct position in law, it was even then not advisable that such operation should have been appropriately modulated.

"The retrospective effect could, eg (and this was put to the learned attorney general), have been limited only to persons other than the ministers and those who had no nexus or connection (whether by way of any personal, political or other relationship or affiliation) with them, and a separate category created for ministers, etc for whom the benefit would only be available prospectively.”

The court noted that the AGP had sought time to examine this, and other, aspects of the matter and consider how to correct, rectify and address the issues and problems pointed out by the bench.

The court also observed that the agencies concerned on whose recommendations the names of different persons were placed on the ECL and against whom cases were either pending in courts or were under investigation had neither been consulted nor notified when those people were removed from the ECL immediately on the amendments coming into effect on April 4 this year.

"In this context, the prosecutor general, NAB [National Accountability Bureau] has categorically stated that they were not consulted. The same appears to be the case with FIA [Federal Investigation Agency] who has not been consulted either.”

The court directed the AGP to coordinate with the NAB prosecutor general as well as FIA director general to formulate standard operating procedures for undertaking an assessment on a case-to-case basis.

The order read that on the last date of hearing, the SC had directed that the record or evidence of all high-profile cases which were either pending in courts or were under investigation should be secured and kept under safe custody.

"The learned prosecutor general, NAB, as well as DG, FIA, have categorically stated that the said exercise has been undertaken. Such record has been placed under lock and key, surveillance cameras have been installed and special guards have been assigned to the premises where such record/evidence is being kept under safe custody. Similar instructions have been issued to the regional offices.

“Further, certificates in this regard issued by heads of regional offices have also been placed on record. In order to further secure the integrity and proper preservation of the record/evidence, we direct that digitised copies (in PDF form) be transmitted to this court for safe custody within 15 days from today. The PDF files shall be in the form of folders for each high-profile case separately along with a detailed index. The FIA DG as well as Prosecutor General, NAB, undertake to do so.”

The order also noted that the FIA DG had filed a list of persons who had travelled abroad after their names had been removed from the ECL. “We, however, note that such record, as presented, is rather haphazard and there appear to be some discrepancies therein. Confronted with this situation, the learned attorney general undertakes to file an updated and current list prepared in a systematic manner. Let the needful be done before the next date of hearing.”

The SC order further read that the FIA DG had submitted that on account of a restraining order passed by this court, routine postings and transfers had been affected which were likely to hamper the working of the department.

“In this context, he maintains that the post of regional director, Lahore is lying vacant. It is stated that this post is essentially of an administrative nature and does not have direct operational control over the high-profile cases. He seeks permission to make an appointment against the said post. In this context, it is clarified that as far as high-profile cases are concerned, the investigating officers who are associated in the investigation of such cases will not be removed, transferred or changed till further orders. Likewise, the prosecutors who are appearing in courts to prosecute the cases which are pending in courts will not be removed, changed or transferred till further orders. However, routine postings and transfers relating to officers working in an administrative capacity and not associated in any manner with the high-profile cases may be undertaken in accordance with law and the relevant rules/regulations, etc.”

The hearing of the case was adjourned till June 14.

Express Tribune

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday directed those part of the Exit Control List (ECL) to seek the interior ministry's permission to travel abroad.

The directive came as a five-member larger bench of the SC resumed the hearing on a suo motu notice on the perceived apprehension of "persons in authority" undermining the criminal justice system.

"Persons in authority made amendments in the ECL rules and benefited from it. The cabinet members apparently abolished the ECL," Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing till June 27.

At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf appeared before the court.

"Did the cabinet approve amendments in the ECL rules?" Justice Ijazul Ahsan inquired.

At this, AGP Ausaf maintained that the matter is under review under a Cabinet committee for legislation.

CJP Bandial remarked that the accused who wants to travel abroad for official work should get permission from the interior ministry.

"Let the system work. Everyone has to work together," the top judge remarked.

He went on to say that the one-sided legislation should also be in line with legal requirements.

"It's not an opportunity for anyone to take advantage. We will keep an eye that no institution exceeds their authority," CJP Bandial clarified, adding that no such order will be passed that causes inconvenience to the government.

The CJP directed the government to make the Standard Operating Procedure regarding the ECL more transparent.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the ECL rules amendments will apply to all the cases.

"The beneficiaries made the amendments to benefit themselves. What was the hurry that they amended the rules within two days after forming the government?" the judge asked.

He asked the government to state the legal reason behind the amendments if any.

During the hearing, the apex court appreciated Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for acquiring the bail in Rs16 billion money-laundering case while appearing before the court in personal capacity, and said that it will examine the order granting the bail.

Meanwhile, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) submitted to the court the record of 42 high-profile cases. The documented evidence was submitted in a sealed envelope while digital records were provided in a USB.

As per the record, the names of 14 high-profile accused, including PM Shehbaz Sharif and Punjab Chief Minister Hamza Shahbaz, were removed from the ECL. Aijaz Haroon — an accused in the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) fake account cases — travelled out of country after his name was removed from the no-fly list and never returned.

However, Haroon's counsel informed the court that Haroon was allowed to leave the country for a month but he returned before the time ended. He said that Haroon is in Pakistan and will face the cases against him.

Meanwhile, NAB sought a two-week extension for the submission of records.

GEO

 

[Bewal Express]

Just topi drama. Were the SC asleep when these crooks did this in the 1st 2 days of their govt.

 

[Firebat]

People on ECL can't go abroad without permission from Interior Ministry: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the federal government to ensure that people on the Exit Control List (ECL) do not travel abroad without permission from the Interior Ministry as it resumed its suo motu hearing into "perceived interference" by "persons in authority" in criminal investigations.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial headed the five-judge larger Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar.

During the last hearing on June 3, the apex court had instructed the coalition government to bring the recent changes in the rules of the ECL within the "ambit of the law" within a week, warning that it would issue an order otherwise.

On April 22, the government introduced significant changes to the rules controlling citizens' exit from the country in an attempt to end the practice of keeping people on the no-fly list for years and even for over a decade.

During the hearing today, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Chaudhry Aamir Rehman told the bench that after the court's previous hearing, a meeting was held in the attorney general's office which was attended by all stakeholders.

"A cabinet committee meeting on ECL rules was also held yesterday," he continued, saying that all the observations and questions of the top court were put forward in it.

Here, Justice Mazhar inquired about the meeting's minutes. "They will be available within a day or two," Rehman replied, adding that the cabinet had also summoned the attorney general.

The office of the attorney general, he went on, has formulated SOPs regarding amendments in the ECL rules and has sent them to all the stakeholders. "All the names struck off the list will be reviewed again one by one."

Subsequently, Justice Ahsan asked what would happen to the names that have already been removed from the list and amendments that have already been made.

"New rules will be made after consultation with the National Accountability Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency," the AAG replied.

Meanwhile, Justice Bandial wondered how the people who were "beneficiaries" could amend the rules. He ruled that people whose names were on the ECL would not be allowed to travel abroad without permission from the Interior Ministry.

"Only those leaving for some government-related work should be allowed," he added.

Responding to the CJ's instructions, Rehman assured the court that until the government completed the law-making process, these orders would be followed.

Read more: https://www.dawn.com/news/1694782/p...-without-permission-from-interior-ministry-sc

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: The federal cabinet on Tuesday approved placing the names of 10 individuals including former prime minister Imran Khan's adviser for accountability and interior Shahzad Akbar on the Exit Control List (ECL), on the recommendation of interior ministry.

The cabinet also endorsed removing names of 22 people from the no-fly list and gave permission to allow three individuals to go abroad one-time only.

On April 17, Akbar departed for Dubai after his name was removed from the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) 'stop list' on the order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

According to sources, Akbar departed via Islamabad International Airport for Dubai on an international airline at 3:30am, from where he was expected to depart for the United Kingdom.