10 hours ago
SHC issues notice to IO over failure to respond in petition on Alvi account freeze
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) National Assembly Member Arif Alvi tabled the bill in the National Assembly last year seeking incorporation of Section 89-A PHOTO: PPI/FILE
Listen to article
The Sindh High Court (SHC) issued on Monday a show-cause notice to the inquiry officer (IO) for failing to respond to a petition filed by former president Dr Arif Alvi challenging the freezing of his and his family's bank accounts.
The court observed that the IO had neither filed a reply nor appeared during proceedings.
A constitutional bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, directed the officer to appear at the next hearing on June 25 and explain the delay.
At a previous hearing, the court had allowed Dr Alvi to withdraw up to Rs1 million from one of the frozen accounts for essential expenses. Other accounts belonging to him, his wife Samina Alvi, and son Awab, remain blocked.
Barrister Ali Tahir, counsel for Dr Alvi, told the court that the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) had issued undated letters to private banks ordering the freeze under Section 25 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, and Section 5 of the FIA Act 1974.
Read: Alvi allowed to withdraw up to Rs1m
The petition argues that the freeze was politically motivated and lacked due legal process. The family alleges the account restrictions have placed them under financial strain.
Last month, SHC had issued notices to the FIA's National Cyber Crime Wing and banks on a petition challenging the freezing bank accounts of Arif Alvi and his family.
During the hearing, Barrister Ali Tahir, informed the court that the blanket freezing of the accounts of Dr Alvi and his family has caused an adverse impact leaving them unable to cover their daily expenses.
The court, while hearing the matter, noted that notices would be sent to all relevant parties and their responses would be sought.
In a brief exchange, the bench remarked that the counsel must have received a fee for representing the case. To which, Barrister Tahir clarified that he was handling the matter pro bono.
