The Sindh High Court (SHC) recently heard a petition filed by former President of Pakistan Dr. Arif Alvi, challenging the freezing of his and his family’s bank accounts by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA).
The accounts were frozen over allegations of blasphemy, which Dr. Alvi’s lawyer, Barrister Ali Tahir, vehemently denied, terming them as false accusations.
During the hearing, Barrister Tahir argued that the NCCIA had no authority to unilaterally freeze the accounts without following due process.
He emphasized that the blanket freezing of the accounts had caused significant financial strain on Dr. Alvi and his family, making it difficult for them to meet their daily expenses. The lawyer also pointed out that the NCCIA’s actions were politically motivated and lacked legal basis.
The court, after hearing the arguments, directed Dr. Alvi to appear before the NCCIA along with his family. The SHC also issued notices to the relevant parties, including the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the banks, seeking their responses on the matter.
The court had previously allowed Dr. Alvi to withdraw up to Rs 1 million from one of his frozen accounts for essential expenses.
The SHC’s division bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, observed that the inquiry officer had neither filed a reply nor appeared during the proceedings.
The court issued a show-cause notice to the inquiry officer, directing him to explain the delay in responding to the petition. The matter has been adjourned to a later date for further hearing.
The freezing of Dr. Alvi’s accounts was done under Section 25 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 and Section 5 of the FIA Act 1974, based on an inquiry initiated by the NCCIA.
Dr. Alvi’s lawyer argued that these provisions do not confer any authority on the NCCIA to unilaterally freeze bank accounts without observing due process of law and legal procedure.
The case has garnered significant attention, with many questioning the NCCIA’s powers and the due process followed in freezing the accounts.
The SHC’s decision to seek responses from the relevant parties and to allow Dr. Alvi to withdraw a limited amount for essential expenses has provided some relief to the former president and his family.
However, the outcome of the case remains uncertain, pending further hearing and deliberations.
In a related development, the Prosecutor General of Sindh had earlier submitted a report in the high court stating that a case was registered in 2018 for arson and rioting, but no case had been registered against Dr. Alvi with the FIA.
This report may have implications for the ongoing case, and it will be interesting to see how the court takes this information into account during the further hearing.