10-14-2010, 12:50 PM
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court pointed out to the government ‘in guarded language’ on Wednesday that its appointment of Justice (retd) Deedar Hussain Shah as chairman of the National Accountability Bureau was another violation of the court verdict on the National Reconciliation Ordinance because it had been done without consultation with the chief justice.
“In guarded and careful language we are bringing to your notice that prima facie this is another non-adherence of paragraph 180 of the Dec 16, 2009, judgment and paragraph 288 of the Asfandyar Wali case,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the head of a 17-judge full court hearing a government’s review petition against its verdict holding the NRO illegal and implementation of the NRO judgment.
The observation upset Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq who only cited a prosecutor general’s case during which a similar discussion had taken place, without a verdict.
“Will NRO judgment by 17 judges prevail or of the three-member bench in the prosecutor’s case?” the chief justice asked. “A person of your stature should not have said so.”
The NRO judgment required the government to fill the post of NAB chairman with a person possessing high degree of competence and impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and also in terms of observations made by the Supreme Court in the 2001 Asfandyar Wali case in which the court held that the appointment should be made in consultation with the chief justice. Consequently, an amendment was introduced in the NAO in compliance with the verdict.
In 2002, the Musharraf government through an amendment deleted the requirement of consultation with the chief justice, but while holding the NRO illegal the Supreme Court again ruled that the offices of both NAB chairman and prosecutor general be filled in accordance with the decision in the Asfandyar Wali case.
“This is for you (the government) as we are not discussing this in greater length for some reasons, but you have to look into it,” the chief justice said to the attorney general. The court also rejected a report submitted by NAB on the implementation of its judgment and said that prima facie the court order had not been complied with and what had been prepared was not satisfactory.
“We direct Additional Prosecutor General Javed Tarar to prepare a fresh report annexed with documents to substantiate what plea the NAB prosecutor has raised during the proceedings,” the chief justice said.
Mr Tarar made the startling statement that NAB had no record of any communication made to Swiss authorities by former attorney general Malik Mohammad Qayyum requesting them to close any pending inquiry into the $60 million money laundering case involving President Asif Ali Zardari.
In its judgment, the court had ordered the federal government and other competent authorities to proceed against Mr Qayyum after declaring unauthorised, unconstitutional and illegal his acts of addressing communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries, including Switzerland.
“No order or any authority was established authorising the former AG to address unauthorised communications and thus the conduct of Malik Qayyum resulted in unlawful abandonment of claims of the Pakistan government to huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries, including Switzerland,” the verdict had said.
Responding to queries from the bench, Javed Tarar repeatedly said that the NAB headquarters had no record to suggest that any letter had been written by Mr Qayyum to the Swiss authorities to close the case. “We will not hesitate to commence prosecution of the case provided we received instructions from the law ministry,” he said.
About implementation of the NRO judgment, he said that after the judgment NAB could not do anything because strictures had been passed against its chairman and the prosecutor general who had to resign.
Mr Tarar could not satisfy the court also about rules that empowered the president to appoint NAB’s acting chairman to officiate in place of the chairman. The law he cited from the book was not updated.
Justice Javed Iqbal commented that not only the performance of NAB was poor, but also the homework it had done for the day. “Either you have not read the judgment or not understood it or deliberately not implementing it,” the judge said.
“This is an evasive reply,” the chief justice said, adding: “You have no idea about the money.”
In today’s world, the travel of money could be tracked easily, Justice Sair Ali said.
UNDERTAKING
Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court that strict action would be initiated against those who had been convicted but had taken benefit of the NRO and were still holding positions in the government.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked the attorney general to provide a complete record from his office as well as from the Punjab government about the money Raza Farooq, the deceased son of former AG Chaudhry Farooq, had earned as government lawyer or through legal consultancy from 1997 to 1999. He was also asked to provide information about the money earned by Mustafa Ramday, son of Justice Ramday, as government lawyer or legal consultant.
“I am seeking the information so that this should come in the public light to end the controversy,” said Justice Ramday who issued the directives in response to a TV talk show in which a guest had levelled allegations against Mustafa Ramday and Raza Farooq.
“In guarded and careful language we are bringing to your notice that prima facie this is another non-adherence of paragraph 180 of the Dec 16, 2009, judgment and paragraph 288 of the Asfandyar Wali case,” observed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the head of a 17-judge full court hearing a government’s review petition against its verdict holding the NRO illegal and implementation of the NRO judgment.
The observation upset Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq who only cited a prosecutor general’s case during which a similar discussion had taken place, without a verdict.
“Will NRO judgment by 17 judges prevail or of the three-member bench in the prosecutor’s case?” the chief justice asked. “A person of your stature should not have said so.”
The NRO judgment required the government to fill the post of NAB chairman with a person possessing high degree of competence and impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and also in terms of observations made by the Supreme Court in the 2001 Asfandyar Wali case in which the court held that the appointment should be made in consultation with the chief justice. Consequently, an amendment was introduced in the NAO in compliance with the verdict.
In 2002, the Musharraf government through an amendment deleted the requirement of consultation with the chief justice, but while holding the NRO illegal the Supreme Court again ruled that the offices of both NAB chairman and prosecutor general be filled in accordance with the decision in the Asfandyar Wali case.
“This is for you (the government) as we are not discussing this in greater length for some reasons, but you have to look into it,” the chief justice said to the attorney general. The court also rejected a report submitted by NAB on the implementation of its judgment and said that prima facie the court order had not been complied with and what had been prepared was not satisfactory.
“We direct Additional Prosecutor General Javed Tarar to prepare a fresh report annexed with documents to substantiate what plea the NAB prosecutor has raised during the proceedings,” the chief justice said.
Mr Tarar made the startling statement that NAB had no record of any communication made to Swiss authorities by former attorney general Malik Mohammad Qayyum requesting them to close any pending inquiry into the $60 million money laundering case involving President Asif Ali Zardari.
In its judgment, the court had ordered the federal government and other competent authorities to proceed against Mr Qayyum after declaring unauthorised, unconstitutional and illegal his acts of addressing communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries, including Switzerland.
“No order or any authority was established authorising the former AG to address unauthorised communications and thus the conduct of Malik Qayyum resulted in unlawful abandonment of claims of the Pakistan government to huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries, including Switzerland,” the verdict had said.
Responding to queries from the bench, Javed Tarar repeatedly said that the NAB headquarters had no record to suggest that any letter had been written by Mr Qayyum to the Swiss authorities to close the case. “We will not hesitate to commence prosecution of the case provided we received instructions from the law ministry,” he said.
About implementation of the NRO judgment, he said that after the judgment NAB could not do anything because strictures had been passed against its chairman and the prosecutor general who had to resign.
Mr Tarar could not satisfy the court also about rules that empowered the president to appoint NAB’s acting chairman to officiate in place of the chairman. The law he cited from the book was not updated.
Justice Javed Iqbal commented that not only the performance of NAB was poor, but also the homework it had done for the day. “Either you have not read the judgment or not understood it or deliberately not implementing it,” the judge said.
“This is an evasive reply,” the chief justice said, adding: “You have no idea about the money.”
In today’s world, the travel of money could be tracked easily, Justice Sair Ali said.
UNDERTAKING
Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court that strict action would be initiated against those who had been convicted but had taken benefit of the NRO and were still holding positions in the government.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday asked the attorney general to provide a complete record from his office as well as from the Punjab government about the money Raza Farooq, the deceased son of former AG Chaudhry Farooq, had earned as government lawyer or through legal consultancy from 1997 to 1999. He was also asked to provide information about the money earned by Mustafa Ramday, son of Justice Ramday, as government lawyer or legal consultant.
“I am seeking the information so that this should come in the public light to end the controversy,” said Justice Ramday who issued the directives in response to a TV talk show in which a guest had levelled allegations against Mustafa Ramday and Raza Farooq.