The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the government to make a regular appointment to the vacant office of Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) within 30 days while terming assumption of the office of Acting Chairman NAB by Deputy Chairman as 'illegal'. In addition, the court held the appointment of Irfan Qadir, Prosecutor-General, Accountability, as "unlawful and of no legal effect and he shall cease to hold the said office forthwith".
This was ruled by a three-member bench of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday in decision issued in a matter related to Rs 9 billion loan scam of Bank of Punjab (BoP). Authored by Justice Ghulam Rabbani, the 62-page judgement said, "the assumption of the office of Acting Chairman NAB by Javed Qazi, Deputy Chairman is illegal and it is, therefore, directed that a regular appointment to the vacant office of Chairman NAB be made in terms of section 6 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999.
The competent authority is allowed thirty days' time for the purpose; and that the appointment of Mr Irfan Qadir, ASC as the Prosecutor General Accountability is un-lawful and of no legal effect and he shall cease to hold the said office forthwith." Former Chairman of NAB, Naved Ahsan, had resigned from the office on June 12.
On July 7, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, after holding a meeting with the Prime Minster at court's direction had stated that the appointment of new chairman was a matter of days. The BoP had raised the issue about the appointment of NAB Chairman and had also highlighted to the court that the appointment of Prosecutor General, Accountability, Irfan Qadir, was unlawful, saying that he had once been appointed at the same post.
The case of the petitioner Bank was that there was a legal bar on his re-appointment to the same office while the case of Irfan Qadir is that the bar was only on the extension of the tenure and not on the fresh appointment of a person who had earlier held the office for a non-extendable term of three years. The relevant provision of section 8 of the NAB Ordinance read as "8(a)(iii) The Prosecutor General Accountability shall hold office for a non extendable period of three years."
With respect to the assumption of the office of the Acting Chairman of the NAB by its Deputy Chairman, it was contended by the applicant Bank that the same was an illegal and an unlawful act being violative of the provisions of section 6(c) of the NAB Ordinance of 1999.
It was argued that the law permitted a Deputy Chairman to act as the Chairman only when the Chairman existed but was temporarily absent or was unable to discharge functions of his office for whatever reason and not when there was no Chairman at all and the office lay vacant.
The order said that is a position admitted even by Irfan Qadir that he had once earlier been appointed as the Prosecutor General Accountability under section 8 of the said Ordinance of 1999 and that he had held the said office for a full term of three years ie from December, 2003 to December, 2006.
The judgement said, "having thus examined all aspects of this legal proposition, we find that in view of the meanings of the words 'non-extendable'; in view of an emphatic pre-fixation of a negative before the word "extendable"; in view of the fact that the said word 'non-extendable' was a considered and a specific insertion in the provision in question through an amendment; in view of the fact that no interpretation was permissible which could have effect of defeating the clear intention and object of legislature and finally in view of the fact that what could not be achieved directly could not be allowed to be accomplished indirectly, the fresh appointment of Irfan Qadir, ASC as the Prosecutor General Accountability could not be sustained on account of section 8(a)(iii) of the NAB Ordinance because he had already held the said office for a 'non-extendable' term of three years. Consequently, it is held that the appointment in question of Mr Irfan Qadir as the Prosecutor General Accountability was not legally tenable, said the order.




















Comments
Comments are closed for this article.