Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Saturday observed that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had been created to eradicate corrupt practices.

“The apparent objective was not to target petty criminals, but those who indulged in massive corruption or where there had been a major misuse or abuse of power,” observed the apex court in its detailed judgment issued in the suo moto case regarding illegal appointments in NAB.

Earlier, the court had de-notified four NAB director generals (DGs) and formed a committee, headed by the Establishment secretary, to investigate irregularities in appointments.

The court has now released a 23-page judgment, authored by Justice Amir Hani Muslim. “NAB’s objective was to provide effective measures for the detection, investigation and prosecution of those involved in corruption and corrupt practices or those who had misused or abused their power,” it stated.

The judgment also discussed the appointment of a sportsperson, Aliya Rasheed, to the post of DG in 2003 by the then prime minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali.

Justice Hani stated that supporting the said appointment on the basis of the prime minister’s policy was not sustainable because NAB Ordinance, the Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS) and Method of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ) did not vest the PM with any authority to issue such a policy.

“Pursuant to the purported policy, neither the MAQ, nor the TCS were amended while the appointment was made without advertising the post or without inviting equally placed persons to participate. Simply issuing such a policy without any further action thereon cannot substitute the provisions of the NAB Ordinance, the TCS and/or the MAQ,” Justice Hani ruled.

During the hearings, counsel for Aliya Rasheed, the de-notified DG, had informed the court that his client had been appointed through a directive issued by Jamali on account of her being “an exceptional tennis star who represented the country in various international tennis tournaments”. The counsel had conceded that no other sportsperson was appointed under the policy.

The top court also observed that NAB officials and their counsel had made an attempt to make the matter complicated even though it was very simple.

“The persons who were so inducted in NAB were already advantageously placed as they did not have to compete with others in a competitive process. Therefore, to project them as victim is wholly inappropriate,” the judgment said.

“Clause (b) of Rule 1.02 of the TCS is restricted only to such persons who are serving on deputation in NAB, and this rule has no application if a person wants to be permanently absorbed in NAB,” the top court ruled.

“Rule 14.03 of TCS did not stipulate that those who opted for permanent absorption in NAB were not required to have the academic qualifications and experience provided in the MAQ. Neither the MAQ nor any rule of the TCS mentions that the qualifications prescribed in MAQ would not apply to such persons. Therefore, the prescribed qualifications are applicable. This would also apply to the appointments made on transfer basis,” the court stated.

The SC stated that if the competent authority opted to substitute the stipulated academic qualification, it could only do this to ensure that certain skills which accompanied a particular academic qualification were required.