KABUL (Pajhwok): Violating Article 129 of the Constitution and based on an eradicated clause of Civil Trial Law, the Supreme Court has annulled a final verdict of a lower court in a bank loan case and ordered re-appeal in the case.
Dr. Baseer Ranjbar, former head of the Central Bank and head of Sawda Company private limited, who currently lives in London, said he obtained nearly $2 million loan in installments from the Pashtani Bank from 2004-2010 for construction of a building on his personal property in Kabul’s Shahr-i-Naw.
He said when the building was about to complete and ready for inauguration, a suicide attack on February 13, 2010 heavily damaged the building and its inauguration was delayed.
Ranjbar told Pajhwok Afghan News so far no installment of the loan could be paid and a delegation from the bank conducted inspection of the damages to the building and remarked in a resolution No. 11 dated May 25, 2010 that: “Sawda Limited is one of the reliable customers of the Bank and their project suffered losses in the suicide attack. If the Bank administration has no objection, the company should be offered extension in loan return and issue $500,000 more loan.”
But Gul Maqsoud Sabet, a member of the Pashtani Bank administrative panel, despite his agreement and signature on the resolution, refrained from implementation of the resolution against all laws.
Sabet dispatched the loan case to the court without informing the administration panel of the bank, prompting Ranjbar to move the High Anti-Corruption Body. Sabet through some channels received information that Ranjbar was referring the case to the anti-corruption body.
Ranjbar said his case was addressed in eight tribunals in five years and all courts issued verdicts in his favor and against the bank’s claim.
The final decision in the case was announced by the Logar Appellant Court on October 26, 2014.
The verdict of Logar Appellant Court, a copy of which is available with Pajhwok Afghan News, says: “We the judicial bench of the appellant court of Logar in an open hearing on November, 4, 2014 acknowledges the claim of Abdul Basir Ranjbar.”
The court ordered $500,000 fresh loan and extension in payment of loan installments. The court verdict is based on article 231, 232, 161, 2/12 of the Trade Trail Law and article 591 of the Trade law.”
A separate letter from the Supreme Court to the Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice says that Abdul Basir Ranjbar in an application to the apex court wrote: “Unfortunately, the relevant authority of the Ministry of Justice did not write to the Supreme Court for re-appeal, nor it acted to implement the court verdict three months after this letter and 10 months after the court decision. This long delay, on one hand, is clearly against the law and, on the other, causes huge losses to both the bank and the customer. Sincerely, please issue the necessary guidance regarding implementation of this decision as soon as possible. Thank you.”
On the basis of this letter, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issued orders asking the Department of Oversight on Final Verdict to take legal steps for implementation of the verdict.
In addition, a letter dated January, 2016 from General Director of State Disputes to the Department of Rights says: “Considering past records of the case on the demand of the applicant Abdul BasirRanjbar, and according to the provisions of the law and considering the resolution of the Supreme Court, necessary actions should be taken. Needed documents against Ranjbar have been dispatched to the relevant department for reconsideration after the final decision of the court.”
Basir Ranjbar claimed that the Supreme Court on August 13, 2016 approved the appeal plea of Pashtani Bank in the case and revoked the Logar Appellant Court decision based on an eradicated clause 6 of article 428 of Civil Trial Law. The Supreme Court referred the case for further proceeding to the Parwan Appellant Court.
A judicial concord No. 4 dated May 6, 2017 from the Supreme Court High Council regarding this case says: “The verdict No. 8 dated November 14, 2017 is annulled under clause 6 of article 482 and the Parwan Appellant Court in the absence of Ranjbar and in violation to all principles issued verdict on its own will.”
The verdict of Parwan Appellant Court says: “We the delegation of the appellant court of Parwan province in judicial trial session dated April 18, 2018 in the presence of representatives from government and defense lawyer collectively decided regarding the entire episode of the case in line with article 2 of the trade principles and materials 231 and 232 of the Principles of Trade Trail Law and article 1859 of the Civil Law.
“We decided and issued a verdict and told you that the absence defense lawyer Shirin Agha that your client shall put the property at the service of the bank for being obliged to submit the amount of 6,277,600 afghanis to the state treasury.”
Ranjbar said the Supreme Court decision was against Article 129 of the Constitution.
Without applying the final decision of the appellant court of Logar, the Supreme Court made its decision on the principles of civil proceedings, and the appellant court of Parwan, without informing him (Ranjbar), convened the hearing in his absence
The Supreme Court issued its verdict in violation of all the criteria at the discretions of the Supreme Court High Council.
Article 129 says the court is obligated to state reason for its verdict. All final decisions of courts shall be enforced, except for capital punishment which shall require Presidential approval.
The sixth clause of Article 482 of the Law on establishment and Jurisdiction of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 1989 states: “The above can cause the sentence to be revoked.”
This clause has been cancelled in 2008 due to the possibility of its misuse.
Ranjbar said in late June this year he was unable to return from abroad due to cancellation of flights owing to coronavirus outbreaks and he was not present in Kabul.
He added a joint delegation of the relevant organs visited his property without any notice or legal document and arrested the only guard of the building.
He added the relevant organs took over full authority of his personal property without the presence of the owner or his representative.
In an open letter Dr. Basir Ranjbar called on the President, “I respectfully urge you not to allow this extremely harmful process, in which members of the highest judicial body knowingly and intentionally and forcibly replace the explicit provisions of the current laws of the country, to political tendencies and personal desires.”
Ranjbar said he had also sent a copy of the above letter to the first Lady and the Second Vice President and, in accordance with Article 129 of the Constitution, called for justice and implementation of the ruling of the Logar appellant court.
The letter, which was issued by the Independent Attorney Association of Afghanistan on November 15, 2017 and a copy of which is available with Pajhwok, said, “The above case under the last part of Article 110 of the Law of Establishment and Jurisdiction of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Article 482 of the Law on the Principles of Civil Procedure of 1989 is repealed and if the courts rule on it, it is contrary to legal principles.”
Pajhwok made several contacts with the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice, but received no response, with officials repeatedly promising to share their views.
Amanullah Yama, the Supreme Court spokesman, told Pajhwok almost nine days back that he would not comment in this regard.