ISLAMABAD: The Law Division has raised serious legal questions over proposed re-appointment or extension .in service of incumbent chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Justice (R) Javed Iqbal.
On completion of 4-year term, NAB incumbent chairman, Justice (R) Javed Iqbal, is retiring in October next and meanwhile a summary has been moved by the government for either his re-appointment or grant of extension for another term of 4-year.
The Law Division is of the view that extension in service of NAB chairman would not be a good option as it may invite sharp reaction from the senior judiciary which may question legality in the case government goes for extension. It’s also not in favour of reappointment of a person as NAB chairman who had served for a full term of 4- year.
The Law Division has quoted Asfundyar Wali case in support of its opinion to make the government legal wizards realize that the government move for extension in NAB chairman would not be without risk of litigation.
Reappointment or extension in service of NAB chairman is also negation of NAB Act . Article 6 of the NAB Act and its clause (b) is relevant to the subject in hand. It says” There shall be a chairman NAB to be appointed by the president in consultation with the leader of the House and leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly for a [non extendable] period of four years on such terms to be determined by the president and shall not be removed except on the grounds of removal of a judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan”.
The opposition is already in not a mood to oversee extension in NAB chairman tenure as it does not have good working relations with incumbent NAB chairman. Both PPP and PMLN do not seem in a mood to let the sitting NAB chairman continue and probably for the same Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI) government is intending to grant extension to Justice (R) javed Iqbal as NAB chairman. The government may follow the model of NAB prosecutor general who on completion of full term was re-appointed for the same post with a gap of two days only. NAB prosecutor’s tenure had completed in January last and he was re-appointed for the same position during his one week vacation.
Justice (R) Javed Iqbal was appointed as NAB chairman in 2017 when Pakistan Muslim League (PMLN) was in power. Then a Pakistan’s top property tycoon known for his contacts in Pakistan’s power corridors had played a key role in making Justice (R) Javed Iqbal a consensus candidate for the NAB chairman slot.
After getting consent of PMLN top boss, the same property tycoon had flown to Dubai to convince the Pakistan People Party (PPP) top boss that Justice (R) Javed Iqbal was the most suitable person for the post of NAB chairman.
Reliable sources confided to NEWSMAN that PPP had some reservations over nomination of Justice (R) Javed Iqbal in 2017 and did not want to give its consent in his favour for the post, but the property tycoon, who is also known for his close link with PMLN and PPP rather with all other political parties as well, managed to convince PPP boss to get his consent for appointment of Justice (R) Javed Iqbal as NAB chairman .
Following 18th amendment its constitutional requirement that the leader of the House (prime minister) and leader of the opposition in the national assembly would take a consensus decision for appointment of the NAB chairman. The constitutional requirement is like making the whole system of higher appointments in Pakistan like one of NAB chairman subservient to the political junta. In other words, this constitutional amendment basically made the governance system hostage to the corrupt political system wherein the appointees, of course, would like to appoint a person on this key post who would suit them the best. The 18th amendment in the constitution, for which PPP never misses any opportunity to take its credit is basically instrumental in making this important appointment on liking and disliking basis. The political recommenders would select a person for this post who would watch their interest rather than protecting the interest of the state and the people at large. This hijacked process of appointment of NAB chairman is one of many loopholes intentionally dug in by the architect or architects of 18th amendment in the constitution.
According to our sources, a summary has been circulated among concerned authorities for either re-appointment or extension for another term in service of incumbent NAB chairman.
Besides other concerned, the summary was forwarded to the Law Division also, seeking its legal opinion over the proposed re-appointment or extension in service of the NAB chairman.
.
