ISLAMABAD – A four-member Supreme Court bench on Wednesday granted time to Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, counsel for the federal government, to consult his client over the issue of appointment of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman and inform the court today (Thursday).
The bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa was hearing petitions moved by Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and a citizen Shahid Orakzai challenging the appointment of Justice (r) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as NAB chairman.
To a court query about the consultation process and the advice given by the prime minister as mandatory under Section 6 (bi) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 for the appointment of the NAB chairman, Pirzada said, “Being a law officer of the court and not as the government counsel, I think if there are any technical deficiencies in the notification of the NAB chairman’s appointment, it can be rectified without discontinuation of the process.”
Justice Khosa said earlier notification could be revoked to rectify the ‘consultation process’. The word ‘advice’ by the prime minister for the appointment was missing in the notification placed before the court and it could be fixed; otherwise, they would hear the case on merits, he added. Earlier on Tuesday, Pirzada had argued that the petitions challenging the appointment of NAB chairman were not maintainable, as the matter of appointment was an administrative matter instead of a matter of human rights.
He had argued that the petitions were filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, which deals with the human rights, thus these petitions were not maintainable. Besides, he had said the petitions before the Supreme Court were not maintainable, as the Sindh High Court (SHC) had taken up two similar pleas and issued an exhaustive order.
He had said the apex court never intervened in a matter unless there was a clog on the enforcement of fundamental rights. Besides, the right of the high court could never be abridged.
