SC reserves verdict

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved judgment on the application regarding the appointments of NAB heads.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved judgment on the application regarding the appointments of National Accountability Bureau acting chairman and prosecutor general. The application objecting to the appointments was filed by Punjab advocate-general Khwaja Haris.

During the course of the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq informed the three-member bench headed by chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry that the prime minister had assured him the NAB chairman would be appointed in a few days.

The AGP also told the court that the premier had explained the delay by saying that under the new NAB rules, the decision of appointing the chairman is to be taken by the leader of the house in the National Assembly – that is, the prime minister – and the leader of the opposition, PML-N’s Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. According to the AG, the prime minister has initiated the process and has proposed a few names to the leader of the opposition.

Meanwhile, NAB prosecutor general Irfan Qadir informed the bench that while he had filed a reply to Harris’ application on Tuesday, the advocate on record did not submit the reply. Qadir then asked the court for more time to file the reply, which the chief justice refused.

Resuming his argument regarding the appointments, Haris told the court that according to the National Accountability Ordinance, the deputy chairman of NAB is to assume the powers of an acting chairman temporarily, if the chairman is absent or unable to perform the functions. As such, argued Haris, the law would apply only in the presence of a chairman; when the post is vacant, the deputy chairman cannot act as chairman.

At this, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday observed that the word ‘vacancy’ was conspicuously missing from the NAB.

Regarding the appointment of NAB prosecutor general, Haris maintained that the law did not allow for extensions and the clause dealing with this matter was added in the ordinance though a presidential order on November 23, 2002. According to this order, said Harris, the prosecutor general could hold office for three years while Qadir had served at this post from 2003 to 2006.

Haris also argued that Qadir has been implicated in the Bank of Punjab case and since the matter is still under investigation, Qadir would need to be exonerated before being reappointed.

Haris further identified the impropriety of Qadir’s being involved with the Bank of Punjab case with the NAB. According to Haris, since Qadir first filed the petition on behalf of BoP primary accused Sheikh Afzal and later read out Afzal’s confessional statement, he should not be associated with the NAB investigation. “This is a mockery of the accountability process,” said Haris.

However, Qadir rebutted Haris’ arguments and said that under the NAO of 1999, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation conducted by NAB officers. Qadir also insisted there is no investigation pending against him.

Responding to a question regarding him having taken money from Afzal to bribe judges, Qadir maintained Afzal had been pushing him to engage top lawyers of the country with a view to influencing the judges.

Regarding his appointment, Qadir said he was the only man who had completed his three-year tenure as NAB prosecutor general. This, insisted Qadir, was proof of his competence and hard work.

Meanwhile, Qadir also accused Harris of having a personal interest in the Bank of Punjab case and said that the bank has paid Haris a hefty amount for playing a pivotal role in this case.

Qadir also pointed out that one of the other accused in the case, Hamesh Khan, had made a statement in which he had levelled serious allegations against Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

To this, Chaudhry said: “Looted money of this nation should be returned to the national treasury and whoever is involved, will be arrested.”

Ramday also chipped in with the observation that were it not for the Supreme Court having taken suo moto notice of the BoP scam, the money would not have been recovered nor would the culprits have been extradited. “This was a 2007 case and NAB made no progress in either the investigations or in the recovery of looted money,” reminded Ramday. “Now that half the money has been recovered and the culprits have been arrested from abroad, you want us to step back so that everything may be undone? You should be grateful to us for having done your job.”

After Qadir’s arguments, Chaudhry reserved judgement in the case.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 8^th, 2010.