The Supreme Court has released its detailed judgement on former Justice Deeder Shah's third time appointment as Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, giving reasons for blocking his rehiring for the same responsibility. A short order on this was issued on March 10 by the three-member bench, but this profoundly illustrates the legal and constitutional grounds for that order.
There is nothing against the person of Justice Shah, clarifying any doubts that may have existed about his political affiliation with the PPP. In fact, he has been declared victim of the Law Ministry's "superficial and perfunctory understanding of the constitution and relevant laws", something which people have been pointing out regularly, conveying to the government that Law Minister Babar Awan was more a liability than a help in resolving the various legal complications inherited from General Musharraf's misrule. But the detailed judgement does convey, in unspoken words, the perceived confrontation between state institutions, repeated in the presidential address.
The problem is that the Executive feels the heat almost on a day to day basis because of its inheritance of the dictator's misrule, only augmented by its own failings in giving a corruption-free governance to the people. For instance, the Executive has failed to appoint a prosecutor-general accountability over the last six months. On the other hand, unwarranted extensions have been given to tainted and condemned officers in apparent consideration that these sold-out souls would prove to be human shields against attacks by an independent judiciary and vibrant media. And in the end, these illegal appointments have earned, and will yield in future, nothing but sheer disappointment and humiliation. The appointment of Rao Shakeel is one such example of how one wrong move can earn the government massive public rebuke and irreparably damage the image of a party.
The detailed judgement brings under sharper focus Justice Shah's two appointments to the office of chairman NAB, both botched and messed up by the Law Ministry's wrong legal advice to the relevant quarters, he now stands disqualified to be appointed to that office again on account of the provision regarding "non-extendable period" contained in Section 6(b)(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, as interpreted through another judgement of the court handed down in the case of the Bank of Punjab vs. Haris Steel Industries(Pvt) Ltd. Therefore, we feel not only the said ministry must be strengthened with competent people, but also the Prime Minister's office should be equipped with proper expertise to countercheck such advice. Another point the verdict reiterated is the importance of consultation with the Chief Justice in the appointment of NAB chairman and expressed hope that recommendations and suggestions made by the apex court through its various judgements from time to time, "would be given effect in future appointments".
The court made clear that "We entertain no manner of doubt that anybody interested in making an honest and good appointment to that office will feel shy of consulting the CJP in that consultation". About consultation with the opposition leader, the court said that it would help "pacify apprehensions of the political opposition about its possible victimisation or persecution, but the same would be meaningless if the opinion of the opposition leader was bulldozed." Similarly, corruption being an unfortunate bane of our society in the present phase of our history and even the high public offices not being immune from serious allegations, leaving such appointment in the hands of those very persons who could possibly, in future or present, be subject to inquiries would, apart from giving rise to the issue of conflict of interest, defeat the very object of the relevant law. So, the Supreme Court has asked the government to reconcile, if that is its motto, with the law and constitution. Any alternate option, we think, would prove to be lethal for the democratic process.