Victimising Axact

Bol Media Group’s management is facing multi-pronged attacks from the PML-N government. Just like the 2015 crackdown, the government is again targeting its parent company, Axact, which was Pakistan’s biggest information technology exporter untill 2014-15.

In 2015, at the behest of its allied media and foreign partners, the PML-N lodged false cases against Axact of running a fake degrees mill. Two similar First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged against Axact – one in Karachi on May 27, 2015, and another in Islamabad nine days later. Both FIRs were identical, naming the same principal accused for identical allegations – a fact accepted by the investigative officers both in Karachi and Islamabad.

Legally, two different FIRs for the same crime cannot be lodged. This is true of not just Pakistan but the entire civilized world. Through them, Pakistan’s biggest IT company was made a target on the mere allegations levelled by a foreign publication. And despite the absence of credible evidence, it was forced to close its operations. The case dragged on for months, and finally the Sindh High Court acquitted all the accused for lack of evidence. But three hours after passing the judgment, the judge wrote that the case should “not (be brought) before me,” The same had happened nine times earlier during the hearing of the case.

The Islamabad High Court, too, acquitted all the accused nominated in the case, but the authorities filed an appeal against this judgement. The appeal was filed 102 days after the passing of the judgement, while legally appeal against a judgement must be filed within 30 to 60 days.

In the appeal, the authorities claimed that a judge and an army brigadier linked to the case were bribed to get a judgement favourable to the Axact/Bol Group management. Under this pretext, the case was remanded back to the trial court. Ironically, while this was done on grounds of fresh allegations, no FIR was filed, which is a requirement under the law. In the same vein, while the Supreme Court cannot take suo-moto action in cases that are pending before trial courts, yet a suo-moto was taken, which means that the case was not represented in the lower court. This amounts to the denial of the constitutional rights of the accused as he has also been denied the right to appeal. The investigation officer, who was also the complainant in the case, himself testified before the court that the Axact businesses were lawful and possessed all the required licenses for its operations. He also said that all the money in question was transferred to the Axact accounts through legal banking channels. This testimony was also backed by the head of the forensics branch.

Given such evidence, the case against Axact should have been thrown out of the window, but it dragged on, apparently for political reasons and to keep the Bol Media Group under pressure in a bid to stifle its independent voice.