Legalised: SC rejects plea against NAB chairman’s appointment

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected two petitions, including that of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, against the appointment of Qamar Zaman Chaudhry as chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Two NAB chairmen – Justice (retd) Deedar Hussain Shah and Admiral (retd) Fasih Bukhari – were sacked by the top court during former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s tenure. Then leader of opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had challenged their appointments. On October 29, 2013, the PTI chief moved a petition through his counsel Hamid Khan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against the incumbent NAB chairman’s appointment, saying that it is the result of a ‘muk muka’ (understanding) between the PPP and PML-N. A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk, took up the matter and dismissed the petitions of Imran and Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi after hearing arguments for three days. Imran contended that Qamar Zaman Chaudhry’s appointment is illegal and without justification against the provision of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance 1999 and the consultation over that slot was mala fide; a fraud upon the law and Constitution. Imran further submitted that the consensus ought to have been among all opposition parties in parliament as there is a strong public perception that the appointment of the incumbent chairman of NAB was the result of complicity between these two parties. He pointed out that a person could not be appointed chairman unless he was a retired federal government officer in BPS-22 of equivalent. The petition also pointed out that it was a matter of record that contempt proceedings were pending against the bureau’s chairman and a show-cause notice was issued to him by the apex court. “Propriety demanded that name of such a person should have not even been considered at all because his conduct was not above-board, as he by his conduct has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law and the judiciary.” Meanwhile, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khursheed Shah moved an application to become party to the case against the appointment of the incumbent NAB chairman. He rejected the petitioner’s stance and stated that all opposition parties, including PTI, were consulted before the appointment was made despite no constitutional or legal requirement to do so. Aitzaz Ahsan, counsel for the opposition leader, strongly defended the appointment of the NAB chairman. Aitzaz pleaded that it was wrong that the name of a civil servant could not be considered for the office of NAB chairman before his/her retirement, as there was no bar in law. Qamar Zaman was appointed NAB chairman after his retirement, he added. Regarding the appointment of chairman NAB, he said the prime minister has two roles; first as a consultant, under Section 6 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999; second, to advise the president under Article 48 of the Constitution. He contended that the president is bound to act upon the advice of the prime minister after the passage of the 18th Amendment. He also raised questions over the court’s jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 184 as it restricts one’s right to appeal. Justice Amir Hani Muslim said that the Constitution has given this right to the court. “If there is any review petition, it should be turned into an appeal. I had given this proposal to former chief justice also,” Aitzaz said. He added that Imran should legislate if he had objections to the process of appointment of NAB chairman. At the end, Khawaja Haris argued on behalf of the government and defended the appointment. Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2014.