ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) is silent on extending the tenure of an accountability court judge but it categorically states that the chairman and prosecutor general of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) will hold their offices only once.
By making the tenures of the NAB head and chief prosecutor non-extendable, the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) has enshrined the principle of non-extension to ensure their independence, saving them from pressures and extraneous considerations. Considering this fact, how could accountability court judges, who need to be most independent, be given extensions? If the law wanted the chief investigator and the prosecutor to be shielded from pressures and temptations of extension, how can it allow the judges to be exposed to such enticement?
All eyes are set on the impending verdicts of Muhammad Bashir, who is judge of the accountability court of the federal capital, in the unprecedented high profile references against the ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and former finance minister Senator Ishaq Dar. He has been serving in this position for the past six years, an unusually prolonged term. His first three-year tenure expired in March 2015, and he was given another three years, which will end on March 12 this year.
There is no indication from the judge about wrapping up the proceedings in the references and handing his decisions within any time frame, and there can’t be one. However, the six-month period set by the Supreme Court in its July 28, 2017 judgment to decide these cases by the accountability court expires on March 7. They were filed by the NAB on the same day in September last year. The long list of the prosecution witnesses given to the court by the NAB is yet to exhaust whereas the defence’s turn to produce its witnesses is still to be unfolded. This stage of the trial will obviously require a considerable time to conclude.
Under the NAO, accountability court judges shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan, meaning the prime minister and the federal government through the Ministry of Law and Justice, in consultation with the relevant high court chief justice.
In view of the approaching expiry of the tenure of Judge Muhammad Bashir, the Law Ministry recently asked the Islamabad High Court chief justice to recommend some judge for his replacement. However, the chief justice has not given any new name but has proposed another three-year extension for the same judge. Does the recommendation made by the IHC chief justice meet the requirements of "consultation" as required by the law? In any case, the proposal is not binding on the Law Ministry.
It is evident from section 5A that the judge will work only for three years. It says a judge, who is a serving District and Sessions judge, shall hold office as the presiding officer of an accountability court for a period of three years from the date of his initial appointment. It means he can’t be removed or transferred without consultation of the provincial chief justice concerned before expiry of three years before the completion of his term. But the provision doesn’t speak about any extension.
The NAO also says an incumbent judge who is working as District and Sessions Judge and retires while serving shall, subject to his option, continue for a period of three years from the date of his initial appointment. This is intended to ensure his three-year term.
Where a serving District and Sessions Judge retires while serving as an accountability judge, he shall be entitled to such pension as would have been admissible to him in his service as a District and Sessions Judge, had he not been appointed as the accountability judge, his service being treated as service for the purpose of calculating that pension. In the cases of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general, sections 6 and 6 of the NAO say they will serve for non-extendable periods of four years and three years respectively.
