NAB chief case: SC says Chaudhry Nisar wasn’t consulted over appointment
Bench says there was no mutual discussion on merits and demerits of the nominee.
President Zardari appointed Fasih Bukhari as NAB chairman on October 16, 2011. PHOTO: PID
ISLAMABAD:
In its detailed judgment on the appointment of the country’s top graft buster, the Supreme Court observed that President Asif Ali Zardari did not consult the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly before appointing Fasih Bokhari as head of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in October 2011.
The president, according to the five-judge bench, made “no serious or genuine effort towards evolving a consensus over the particular nominee”. There was also “no mutual discussion” about the “merits or demerits of the nominee”, the bench said in the final ruling.
On May 28, 2013, a five-judge bench of the top court, through a short order, said that Bokhari’s appointment was illegal. The bench, headed by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani comprised Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Khosa, Justice Amir Hani Muslim and Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed. The same bench began hearing a petition filed by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan as opposition leader in the National Assembly.
Bokhari’s lawyer Sardar Abdul Latif Khan Khosa insisted however that proper consultation was made by the president with the opposition leader before appointing NAB chairman on October 16 2011. The bench answered through its judgment that, “a constitutionally or statutorily required ‘consultation’ has to be effective, meaningful, purposeful, consensus-oriented, leaving no room for complaint of arbitrariness or unfair play.”
Court proceedings
Regarding Bokhari’s argument that Chaudhry Nisar had never raised a question about his eligibility as NAB chairman, the top court, in its order, remarked, “Asking for a panel of possible candidates itself was indicative of the fact that the petitioner Nisar Ali entertained reservations against the nomination of Bokhari.”
“It is also a fact that after the appointment of Bokhari as chairman, the petitioner had lost no time and had challenged his appointment through the present petition which was filed within six days of the appointment.”
As Khosa said that the PML-N leadership had accepted Bokhari’s nomination as NAB chairman, the bench stated, “This acceptance is irrelevant because a leader of the opposition in the National Assembly does not merely represent his own political party in the National Assembly, but the entire opposition”
Furthermore, the bench also ignored the proposition raised by Akram Sheikh representing Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan that in accordance with some recommendations of the SC, the president should have sent the matter to the chief justice of Pakistan as neutral consultant.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2013.
In its detailed judgment on the appointment of the country’s top graft buster, the Supreme Court observed that President Asif Ali Zardari did not consult the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly before appointing Fasih Bokhari as head of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in October 2011.
The president, according to the five-judge bench, made “no serious or genuine effort towards evolving a consensus over the particular nominee”. There was also “no mutual discussion” about the “merits or demerits of the nominee”, the bench said in the final ruling.
On May 28, 2013, a five-judge bench of the top court, through a short order, said that Bokhari’s appointment was illegal. The bench, headed by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani comprised Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Justice Khosa, Justice Amir Hani Muslim and Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed. The same bench began hearing a petition filed by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan as opposition leader in the National Assembly.
Bokhari’s lawyer Sardar Abdul Latif Khan Khosa insisted however that proper consultation was made by the president with the opposition leader before appointing NAB chairman on October 16 2011. The bench answered through its judgment that, “a constitutionally or statutorily required ‘consultation’ has to be effective, meaningful, purposeful, consensus-oriented, leaving no room for complaint of arbitrariness or unfair play.”
Court proceedings
Regarding Bokhari’s argument that Chaudhry Nisar had never raised a question about his eligibility as NAB chairman, the top court, in its order, remarked, “Asking for a panel of possible candidates itself was indicative of the fact that the petitioner Nisar Ali entertained reservations against the nomination of Bokhari.”
“It is also a fact that after the appointment of Bokhari as chairman, the petitioner had lost no time and had challenged his appointment through the present petition which was filed within six days of the appointment.”
As Khosa said that the PML-N leadership had accepted Bokhari’s nomination as NAB chairman, the bench stated, “This acceptance is irrelevant because a leader of the opposition in the National Assembly does not merely represent his own political party in the National Assembly, but the entire opposition”
Furthermore, the bench also ignored the proposition raised by Akram Sheikh representing Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan that in accordance with some recommendations of the SC, the president should have sent the matter to the chief justice of Pakistan as neutral consultant.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2013.