Not enough courts for deluge of cases: NAB chief

Chairman says huge backlog makes it impossible to adjudicate matters within 30 days

ISLAMABAD:

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chief on Saturday blamed the shortage of accountability courts for the delay in deciding corruption cases – a couple of days after the apex court held the anti-graft body responsible for the problem.

In a report submitted to the Supreme Court in pursuance of its order on July 8 on reasons behind the delay in trials, NAB Chairman Justice (retd) Javed Iqbal pointed out that with the present strength of accountability courts and the workload of cases pending adjudication -- each of them currently handling 50 references on an average -- it was practically “impossible to adjudicate and finalise matters within 30 days”.

Under section 16(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 a timeframe of 30 days is set for the conclusion of trial by a court and it is required to conduct proceedings on day-to-day basis.

The top court has already ordered the law secretary to seek the government’s instructions for setting up at least 120 accountability courts to deal with a huge backlog of cases.

The NAB chairman informed that court that there were 25 accountability courts presently dealing with 1,226 references.

He pointed out 260 cases were pending adjudication in five accountability courts in the Karachi/Hyderabad region, 303 in five courts in Lahore, 190 in seven courts in the Rawalpindi/Islamabad/Gilgit-Baltistan region, 43 in four courts in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, 218 in two courts in Balochistan and 94 in 43 in one court each in Multan and Sukkur respectively.

“The only way out of this faux pas is to increase the strength of the accountability courts,” he added.

Citing other reasons for the delay, the NAB chairman stated in the report that the defence filed miscellaneous applications in which interlocutory orders were passed by accountability courts.

“This results in stalling and delay in the main proceedings. To curb this tendency, timelines be set to decide such applications and frivolous applications be dismissed with costs,” he recommended.

He added that to further complicate matters, these orders were assailed with appellate forums wherein at times stay orders were granted and proceedings were suspended. “Therefore timelines be also set to finalise these matters within the stipulated time.”

Highlighting another drawback, the NAB chief noted accountability courts were empowered under Section 179(c) of the NAO, 1999 to apply the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure expeditious disposal but the procedure was “hardly adopted or followed”.

The head of the anti-graft body mentioned the long list of witnesses because of the present legal requirements as the “biggest hurdle in smooth proceedings” and “causing massive delays” in trial.

“To offset this malady,” he added, “the procedure and mechanism as contained in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance which has been enacted for a similar purpose can be resorted to.”

He further recommended that the court should frame charges immediately after examining the material provided to it as the spirit of the Section 18(g) of the NAO, 1999 postulated that the after the appraisal of evidence, the opinion of the NAB chairman was enough to justify the filing of a reference.

“NAB, on its part, undertakes that henceforth no adjournment shall be taken any prosecutor for any reason whatsoever,” he added.

The NAB chairman also proposed setting guidelines for the law ministry to finalise the name of an accountability court judge within 10 days. He also suggested increasing the tenure of an accountability court judge from three years to five years.

It was also recommended that a timeline be set for mutual legal assistance pertaining to foreign jurisdiction as the expression “politically exposed persons” was misconstrued by courts and NAB was required to await the receipt of information.

The NAB chairman also noted that “proceedings against abscondence as envisaged in NAO, 1999” were not invoked and the other option was to obtain custody of an accused was through the process of extradition seeking help from the Interpol that required an extradition treaty. He added that he had taken up the matter with the president to devise a mechanism to address it.

The anti-graft body chief also sought fixing of a date to decide the matter of voluntary returns.

It was also pointed out that Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to declare an accused a proclaimed offender was a lengthy process.

The NAB chairman contended that the basic requirements and parameters for the grant of bail set by the Supreme Court in the cases the Talat Ishaque, Asfandyar Wali and Nawaz Sharif cases were not given effect to.

In conclusion, the NAB chief suggested acquiring the services of retired judges for the proposed 120 accountability courts in case there were not enough district and sessions judges to fill the slots.