Calling Tayaba Gul a villain is convenient. The lack of sympathy for her is easy to rationalize. Who is she after all? Where did she come from? Whatever her antecedents, she is not rich, powerful or famous. No wonder we are not inclined to be generous towards her. Worse still, she seems to have opinions and has taken on a highly influential man, occupying one of the most important offices in the country. How impertinent. She might not be likable or “launched”. Both points are irrelevant and insignificant to the alleged conduct of the National Accountability Bureau chairman. Explanations, a press release, and subsequent conduct of the Bureau seem to be a damning admission: “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Soon after the material was aired by a private TV channel, several actors on our political landscape joined the fray. They tried predictably to spin the story to best suit their positions. The usual noise: the PML-N is behind this; the PM’s Office manipulated it; a corrupt mafia launched her; the NAB is being ambushed for going after the corrupt – all of that could be true or false; was inevitable. We could care less. In terms of framing of the issue, the conduct of the NAB chairman alone merits attention. If true, the actions are not his private business. It is conduct unbecoming a NAB chairman. The conversations point to behaviour involving moral turpitude. He should resign and not wait for a declaration about his conduct and state of mind by a court of competent jurisdiction. Soon after the content was aired by a private TV channel, several actors in our political landscape joined the fray The PEMRA has served the channel a show cause notice. In what appears to be a predetermined outcome of such proceedings, the NAB has filed a reference against the woman involved and her husband. Comment on TV is being carefully packaged to air only a regimented review or analysis. Fairplay? A Humpty Dumpty cannot have a great fall in the wake of this story; not like this. Perhaps the time’s not up yet – not in this part of the world. What we can do is rewrite our laws. The NAB chairman is appointed under Section 6(b) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, for a non-extendable term of four years, by the President in consultation with the leaders of the National Assembly and the Opposition. The qualifications are spelled out in Section 6(b) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999; a chairman [not chairperson] should be a retired chief justice of a high court or a judge of the Supreme Court, a retired lt. general or equivalent in the armed forces or a retired federal government official who has served in BS 22 or equivalent. There is no clause spelling out a disqualification. The NAB chairman is too serious a position to be reserved for retired officers who are otherwise not considered fit, because of their age, to keep serving in their respective departments and organizations. The politicians should have no role in the consultative process in appointing a person to such a position. It should be left to the executive discretion exercised in accordance with stringent qualification criteria provided in the text of the enabling law. However, a confirmation hearing before a parliamentary sub-committee, drawn from both treasury and opposition benches, may be introduced. In addition, there should be a provision for disqualification of the NAB chairperson if incident like the one unfolding these days, occurs. There is no vested right to serve the entire length of a term if one has been incapacitated to serve for any reason. Our laws already recognize unbecoming conduct or an offence involving moral turpitude as grounds for disqualification under various regulatory regimes. Just to make it momentous, we can call it a Tayyaba amendment to the NAB Ordinance. At the very least, there should be an impartial inquiry into these allegations. The story is a major setback for the office of the chairman. Unless a decisive step is taken in the wake of Ms Gul’s allegations, the accountability process in the country could be further discredited. The writer attended Berkeley and is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn