Apex court concerned over delays in NAB trials
SC seeks details of all pending references
PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has taken notice of delays in the trial of people accused of financial wrongdoing by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
A three-judge bench of the apex court -- headed by Justice Mushir Alam -- directed the national corruption watchdog on Wednesday to submit details of the references pending in all trial courts. The law secretary has also been asked to furnish a list of vacant posts of judges in accountability courts.
The top court referred the matter to Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, recommending him to form a special bench to deal with the situation. According to Section 16(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, a trial must be concluded within 30 days.
The first notice of the year 2020 was taken during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the brother of MPA Allah Dino Bhayo, who’s accused of corruption.
The same bench had questioned on Tuesday NAB’s modus operandi of taking suspects into custody before gathering evidence against them.
Background
On April 8 last year, the apex court directed the court to conclude the trial of Bhayo’s brother expeditiously. The trial court has conducted 14 hearings but the case could not be concluded, and the NAB prosecutor has sought adjournment.
Lawyer Shah Khawar, who appeared on behalf of the accused, told The Express Tribune, that the court expressed concern over the delay in the trial of accused persons, who were also being kept in confinement for years.
For the former Lahore High Court judge, the national graft-buster has capacity issues, which is why trials are being delayed, despite the accused being in its custody.
He expects the special bench to re-examine the Talat Ishaq case verdict which states that a delay in trial is not a reason to grant bail to the accused.
Talat Ishaq case
In November 2018, a five-judge larger bench in its judgment recommended that “the unrealistic timeframe for conclusion of a trial specified in Section 16(a) of the NAO, 1999 may be reconsidered and revisited by the legislature”.
The judgment, while comprehensively interpreting Section 16(a) of NAO 1999, held that it is not mandatory to conclude the trial of graft cases within 30 days as it has no penal consequences.
It said that Section 16(a) of NAO 1999 relates to prosecution of an accused person in an accountability court and hearing of the case on day-to-day basis such that it is disposed of within 30 days, and not of the accused’s period of custody before or during the trial.
“Likewise, Section 16(a) does not contemplate or provide for bail for an accused person if the timeframe for the trial mentioned therein is overstepped. In fact Section 9(b) of the said ordinance expressly ousts jurisdiction of accountability court in the matter of grant of bail to an accused person on any ground”.
The verdict said that the word “shall” used in Section 16(a) of the NAO 1999 has been used in the context of conclusion of a trial by an accountability court and it is directory in nature and not mandatory because it does not provide for a penalty or a consequence in case of its non-observance or non-compliance.
“It does not provide that if the stipulated timeframe is not adhered to by an accountability court in the matter of conclusion of a trial then the prosecution of the accused person would stand terminated and he would be deemed to have been acquitted or that the accused person would be entitled to be admitted to bail on such ground.”
The court said there was hardly any precedent available where a high court or the apex court admitted an accused person to bail exclusively on the ground that one had remained in custody for over 30 days or the trial had not concluded within 30 days, except a couple of cases.
“It goes without saying that a direction issued by a superior court to the trial court to conclude a trial within a specified period is an administrative direction and non-compliance of such a direction by the trial court for whatever reason may not entitle the accused person to claim bail as of right,” it said.
References
On January 3, the accountability watchdog had issued a statement, disclosing that 1,275 references were pending before 25 trial courts.
The details of references filed by NAB (region wise) are: Lahore (362), Karachi (259), Rawalpindi (219), K-P (191), Balochistan (124), Multan (80), Sukkur (40).
The Supreme Court has taken notice of delays in the trial of people accused of financial wrongdoing by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
A three-judge bench of the apex court -- headed by Justice Mushir Alam -- directed the national corruption watchdog on Wednesday to submit details of the references pending in all trial courts. The law secretary has also been asked to furnish a list of vacant posts of judges in accountability courts.
The top court referred the matter to Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, recommending him to form a special bench to deal with the situation. According to Section 16(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, a trial must be concluded within 30 days.
The first notice of the year 2020 was taken during the hearing of a bail plea filed by the brother of MPA Allah Dino Bhayo, who’s accused of corruption.
The same bench had questioned on Tuesday NAB’s modus operandi of taking suspects into custody before gathering evidence against them.
Background
On April 8 last year, the apex court directed the court to conclude the trial of Bhayo’s brother expeditiously. The trial court has conducted 14 hearings but the case could not be concluded, and the NAB prosecutor has sought adjournment.
Lawyer Shah Khawar, who appeared on behalf of the accused, told The Express Tribune, that the court expressed concern over the delay in the trial of accused persons, who were also being kept in confinement for years.
For the former Lahore High Court judge, the national graft-buster has capacity issues, which is why trials are being delayed, despite the accused being in its custody.
He expects the special bench to re-examine the Talat Ishaq case verdict which states that a delay in trial is not a reason to grant bail to the accused.
Talat Ishaq case
In November 2018, a five-judge larger bench in its judgment recommended that “the unrealistic timeframe for conclusion of a trial specified in Section 16(a) of the NAO, 1999 may be reconsidered and revisited by the legislature”.
The judgment, while comprehensively interpreting Section 16(a) of NAO 1999, held that it is not mandatory to conclude the trial of graft cases within 30 days as it has no penal consequences.
It said that Section 16(a) of NAO 1999 relates to prosecution of an accused person in an accountability court and hearing of the case on day-to-day basis such that it is disposed of within 30 days, and not of the accused’s period of custody before or during the trial.
“Likewise, Section 16(a) does not contemplate or provide for bail for an accused person if the timeframe for the trial mentioned therein is overstepped. In fact Section 9(b) of the said ordinance expressly ousts jurisdiction of accountability court in the matter of grant of bail to an accused person on any ground”.
The verdict said that the word “shall” used in Section 16(a) of the NAO 1999 has been used in the context of conclusion of a trial by an accountability court and it is directory in nature and not mandatory because it does not provide for a penalty or a consequence in case of its non-observance or non-compliance.
“It does not provide that if the stipulated timeframe is not adhered to by an accountability court in the matter of conclusion of a trial then the prosecution of the accused person would stand terminated and he would be deemed to have been acquitted or that the accused person would be entitled to be admitted to bail on such ground.”
The court said there was hardly any precedent available where a high court or the apex court admitted an accused person to bail exclusively on the ground that one had remained in custody for over 30 days or the trial had not concluded within 30 days, except a couple of cases.
“It goes without saying that a direction issued by a superior court to the trial court to conclude a trial within a specified period is an administrative direction and non-compliance of such a direction by the trial court for whatever reason may not entitle the accused person to claim bail as of right,” it said.
References
On January 3, the accountability watchdog had issued a statement, disclosing that 1,275 references were pending before 25 trial courts.
The details of references filed by NAB (region wise) are: Lahore (362), Karachi (259), Rawalpindi (219), K-P (191), Balochistan (124), Multan (80), Sukkur (40).