ISLAMABAD
The Supreme Court on Monday served notices on the attorney general to explain articles of the constitution related to ‘consultation’ in the appointments of government’s institutions.
The three-member bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali and Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, was hearing petitions challenging the appointment of Deedar Hussain Shah as NAB chairman.
The court also issued notice to the federal government through the Law and Justice Ministry over the issue of the NAB chairman’s appointment. The court directed the respondents to explain the matter along with the comments.
Akram Sheikh, senior lawyer for the petitioner, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Nisar Ali Khan, contended that during the presence of cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, the appointment of Justice (r) Shah amounted to a conflict of interests.
He said the appointment was made without due consultation with the leader of the House, leader of the opposition and the chief justice of Pakistan. He said certain relevant laws were violated by not carrying out the meaningful consultation.
He said the appointment could be made through meaningful consultation envisaged under Article 48A in which the president could make appointment after an advice from the prime minister. But, he said the prime minister had stated to the media that it was president’s prerogative to appoint the NAB chairman and he had nothing to do with it.
He said by making such an appointment, the mandatory consultation with the chief justice was also ignored which stood revived after the Supreme Court’s rulings in Asfandyar Wali Khan and NRO cases.
Justice Javed Iqbal noted that meaningful consultation did not mean to develop a consensus. “Did consultation mean acceptance of the opposition leader’s recommendations?” he questioned.
Sheikh said a telephonic conversation could not be said to be a meaningful consultation. He said the incumbent NAB chairman had no lawful authority to hold the office, thus he should be called to ask under what authority of law was he was holding the office. He requested the court to order Shah to relinquish his office forthwith and declare the office vacant.
Sheikh said the appointment of Justice (r) Shah should be declared void from the outset as relevant law had not been followed in the appointment. Appearing on notice, Shahid Orkazai, another petitioner, contended that NAB chairman’s appointment was illegal, as a retired judge of the Supreme Court could not be appointed NAB chairman.
