NAB presents lame excuse in Hudaibiya case

ISLAMABAD: The excuse of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) – non-appointment of its Prosecutor General (PG) – for seeking adjournment of proceedings on its appeal in the Supreme Court in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case against the Sharifs is apparently unconvincing and weak and shows its lack of preparation.

Under clause (d) of section 8 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), in case the PG is absent or unable to perform the functions of his office due to any reason whatsoever, any other law officer of the NAB, duly authorised by its chairman, will act as the PG.

Thus, till the time a new PG is picked up, the NAB chief can designate any senior lawyer to plead the case in the Supreme Court. The NAB pretext reflects that it has no able law officer who can argue this appeal as per its expectations.

The NAB demonstrated immense enthusiasm by calling into question, though very belatedly, the judgment of the Lahore High Court (LHC) that had quashed the reference in 2014 but immediately after its filing of the appeal it started dragging its feet on its quick disposal by the apex court and its zeal waned.

On the last hearing of the appeal on November 28, the NAB prosecutor had to face embarrassment for his lack of homework. He did not even have the copy of the quashed reference of 2000 to produce to the three-member bench. He failed to answer a plethora of questions to the satisfaction of the panel. Ultimately, he sought a long adjournment but the bench gave him two weeks. As far as the appointment of the new PG is concerned, section 8 says the President, in consultation with the NAB Chairman, may appoint any person, who is qualified to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, as the PG.

The president means the federal government (the prime minister). It is believed that the opinion (consultation) of the NAB chief will have relevance but is not mandatory. The appointment is not in the NAB chairman’s discretion. Waqas Qadeer Dar retired as the PG in November.

As it happens in such selections, a panel of three is sent to the president to appoint one of them. The federal government will be cautious in making the appointment in view of the one-sided accountability going on against ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members.

Under the law, the PG will hold independent office on whole time basis for a non-extendable period of three years and will not hold any other office concurrently. He will not be removed from office except on the grounds of removal of a Supreme Court judge. He will give advice to the NAB Chairman upon such legal matters and perform such other duties of a legal character as may be referred or assigned by him, and in the performance of his duties, he will have the right of audience in all courts established under the NAO and all other courts including the Supreme Court and a high court and tribunals. With the approval of the NAB Chairman, he may appoint special prosecutors to conduct prosecution of cases and advocates to institute or defend cases, appeals, petitions, applications and all other matters before any court or tribunal including the high courts and Supreme Court in matters arising out of or relating to proceedings under the NAO. It is generally expected that the Sharifs may try to delay the disposal of the appeal by the apex court while the NAB will be in a hurry for its adjudication. But the reverse is true in this case. This speaks of the NAB’s capacity.

A question that will also crop up during the hearings on the appeal may be as to what prompted the NAB to hastily file the appeal while it has been sitting on it for three years. It is widely known that the corruption buster was pushed hard by certain quarters to dispute the LHC decision whereas it has always been reluctant to do so for not having much weight in the case. The main split judgment in the Panama case was handed on April 20. The final order of the court was announced on July 28 in which Nawaz Sharif was disqualified as the prime minister. It contained no direction to the NAB to file the appeal in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case as it said “if and when” it will be submitted, the apex court will take a decision. Thus, it was left to the NAB whether to submit the appeal to seek reinvestigation of the case or not.

The reference that was trashed by the LHC dates back to 2000. Originally, it did not have the name of Nawaz Sharif as an accused. But as Lt-Gen (retd) Khalid Maqbool was appointed as the NAB chairman, he included the ex-premier’s name in the supplementary reference.