NAB’s powers challenged in Sindh once again

Court refers matter to SHC chief justice

KARACHI: Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh was requested on Monday to pass an order on the former provincial land secretary's plea challenging powers of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to initiate inquiries or investigations into matters relating to the departments of the provincial government.

A three-judge larger bench, headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, made this request while referring a petition against alleged interference of the national anti-graft watchdog in provincial government departments to the SHC CJ. The bench, also comprising justices Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Omar Sial, adjourned hearing on the matter till January 10, 2018.

The matter was taken to court by the former provincial land secretary, Ghulam Mustafa Phul, who is facing an inquiry by NAB into alleged illegal land allotment.

According to NAB investigators, four inquiries were pending against the petitioner and others for allegedly illegally allotting 265 acres of land and 276 plots in Malir district.

Previously, the NAB prosecutor had informed the court that losses worth billions of rupees were caused to the national exchequer through such illegal allotments of state land. The prosecutor had sought more time to complete the investigation and submit progress report in the court.



Expressing its displeasure over delays in completing the investigation, the bench, headed by Justice Sheikh, had granted 45 days to NAB to complete the investigation and submit the progress report. In the meantime, it had told the anti-graft watchdog authorities to get the CNICs of the suspects blocked through NADRA if they did not cooperate with the investigators.

However, the petitioner had objected to the scope of operations of the federal anti-corruption bureau.

His lawyer argued that NAB was a federal anti-graft watchdog and its scope was limited to only those departments run by the federal government. It was further argued that the NAB had no jurisdiction to launch any inquiry or investigation or take action in the matters related to the provincial government's departments.

Therefore, the court was requested to declare that NAB had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matters pertaining to the provincial government departments. Subsequently, it was also requested to declare the inquiry initiated by NAB against the petitioner without any lawful authority and to be stopped.

During Monday's proceedings, Justice Phulpoto observed that the issue relating to scope of NAB to operate in the province had already been discussed in another petition, wherein the Sindh National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 Repeal Act, 2017 was challenged.

The judge further observed that a separate petition on the subject matter was already pending in the SHC therefore the same matter could not be heard separately.



With these observations, the bench referred the matter to the SHC CJ to pass an order accordingly.

Order reserved

A three-judge larger bench, headed by the CJ, had reserved its order on identical petitions filed by the opposition parties against the repeal of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 in Sindh by the Pakistan Peoples Party-led provincial government.

Tactically using its majority in the provincial assembly, the government had got passed the Sindh National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 Repeal Act, 2017 through which powers of the NAB to operate in Sindh were clipped and all pending inquiries against government functionaries and politicians were transferred to the provincial anti-corruption authority.

However, the bench had later allowed NAB to continue with pending inquiries and investigations against former and serving lawmakers and bureaucrats till the final disposal of the petitions filed by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Pakistan Muslim League - Functional and civil rights campaigner, Pasban Pakistan.

After hearing at length arguments from the attorney-general, the provincial advocate-general and the lawyers representing the petitioners, the larger bench had reserved its order in the matter. The order will be announced on a date to be later notified by the office.