What's new

SC seeks appointments record of NAB DGs

Ivan

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
684
Reaction score
-6
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Nasir Iqbal
Updated 06 Aug 2020

5f2b8130b4c82.jpg

Supreme Court questions posting of an engineer as bureau’s Rawalpindi director general. — AFP/File

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought complete record of appointments of different directors general posted at important regional directorates of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

The appointments to senior posts of the anti-corruption watchdog caught the court’s attention when a two-judge SC bench questioned the appointment of NAB’s Rawalpindi director general Irfan Naeem Mangi.

Mr Mangi shot to prominence when he was appointed a member of the six-man Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted on the orders of the apex court to probe the Panama Papers leak which eventually led to disqualification of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 2017.

The bench consisting of Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Faez Isa had taken up a bail plea of Mohammad Nadeem, who is facing allegations of blackmailing and fleecing people by impersonating a NAB officer. The court issued a notice to Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan to assist it in the matter.

Questions posting of an engineer as bureau’s Rawalpindi director general

The court was informed that the accused had called a number of government officers, including Irfan Mangi, by impersonating a NAB officer and a complaint against him had been registered on behalf of the anti-corruption watchdog.

During the hearing, Justice Isa wondered how the NAB chairman could appoint officers by bypassing rules and regulations, adding that prima facie Section 28 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) contravened Article 240 of the Constitution.

When Justice Isa asked Mr Mangi about his educational qualification as well as the remuneration he draws from the national exchequer as director general, he said he was an engineer and drew a salary of Rs420,000. He replied in the negative when Justice Isa asked if he had any experience of dealing with criminal cases.

At this, Justice Isa wondered how could the highest office in the NAB hierarchy be occupied by an engineer, asking was this the way NAB functioned when it was set up to nab corrupt elements in society. Under what law the NAB chairman appointed officers in the bureau and how an engineer could be appointed as its director general, the judge wondered, adding that the chairman could be called by the court since he was no longer a judge now.

The NAB is run through the hard-earned money of the people and its officers are the servants of the people,” Justice Isa emphasised.

He also regretted that laws were trampled with impunity during the martial law regimes — a period when “we were more fearful of a dictator than Allah Almighty”. It would be far better than the martial law that the country should be given back to the colonial masters to rule, he said.

Justice Isa regretted that it was only because of the negligence of NAB that people were forced to languish behind bars for years, adding that the performance of NAB qualified itself to face a reference against itself as it had failed to develop even its rules and regulations since 1999 when the NAO was promulgated.

Justice Isa wondered how accused Nadeem, who got his education up to the middle standard from some Bahawalpur school, could impersonate NAB officer and blackmail people, recalling that the accused had even called the PSO managing director by impersonating NAB director general, in addition to other government officers.

How the accused could have access to the cellular numbers of NAB officials, the court wondered.

Justice Mushir Alam asked why no statement of any witness had been recorded in this case.

Advocate Zafar Warriach, appearing on behalf of the accused, alleged that not a single statement of the affected persons had so for been recorded, adding that an FIR against the accused had been registered after a NAB reference against his client was made.

The court, however, accepted the bail plea of the accused and postponed the proceedings to an indefinite period.
 
.

Nasir Iqbal
Updated 08 Aug 2020

5f2e1b92add32.jpg

Bureau’s prosecutor general told to satisfy Supreme Court on the matter at next hearing. — Online/File

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has asked if the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) can bypass constitutional provisions in making appointments in the bureau under a subordinate legislation.


On the next date of hearing, the prosecutor general NAB is required to satisfy the court whether under the subordinate legislation, the mandate of the Constitution under Articles 240 and 242 can be bypassed in making appointments,” said a three-page order issued by a two-judge SC bench consisting of Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

The directive came on an appeal filed by Muhammad Nadeem seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered against him on Feb 19, 2020 under the Telegraph Act at the Aabpara police station in Islamabad.

During the hearing, the appointment of NAB’s Rawalpindi Director General Irfan Naeem Mangi was questioned by Justice Isa and the court was told that he was an engineer. Subsequently, an order was issued later asking under what power and authority the NAB director general was functioning.


The court was informed that Mr Mangi was appointed by the NAB chairman in exercise of powers under Section 28(g) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

Bureau’s prosecutor general told to satisfy apex court on the matter at next hearing

Section 28(g) reads: “Notwithstanding anything to contrary contained herein or in any law for the time being in force, the chairman NAB, shall not be required to consult the Federal Public Service Commission for making appointments and on matters relating to the qualifications of persons for such appointments and methods of their recruitment and the qualifications for the appointments and methods of recruitment shall be such as he may by rules prescribe.

The perusal of clause (g), read with Section 34 of the NAO, reveals that prima facie such powers are to be exercised in the manner as provided for under the ordinance of 1999, and the NAB chairman is required to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the ordinance 1999, but the court has been informed that no such rules have been made till date.

On the other hand, Article 240 of the Constitution deals with the appointment to the service of Pakistan and spells out the condition to make such appointments through the Public Service Commission. Likewise, Article 242 of the Constitution states that appointments in the service of Pakistan will be made through the Public Service Commission.

Consequently, the Supreme Court directed its office to deal the present case as a fresh suo motu and fix it before the bench for consideration of the points highlighted. Since the point needed interpretation of the Constitution and the law, notice should also be issued to Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan to assist the court in the matter, the order said.

The court regretted that the NAB prosecution had not learnt from the earlier lapses rather it aggravated the perception of the incompetence of the officers. The court also deplored that the statement of Irfan Mangi — a star witness in the case of impersonation — had neither been recorded nor had any other incriminating evidence so far been collected.

Earlier also, the order said, Muhammad Nadeem, who had impersonated DG Mangi, had been extended bail twice on the ground of lack of proper investigation and evidence and same was the position in the case at hand.

Nadeem was allegedly heading a gang operating in Lahore and Karachi, but neither any material was collected nor was any gang or co-accused traced during the investigations, the order said.

Earlier, Chief Justice of Pakistan Gulzar Ahmed, while hearing a case relating to NAB, had also held in an order that the anti-graft watchdog itself was responsible for the delay in deciding corruption references as its officials were not competent.

The chief justice had also regretted that the NAB officers did not possess enough expertise to conduct proper enquiries/investigations and it seemed that no measure was in place on the basis of which such enquiries/investigations were examined. He observed that the NAB officers conducted faulty enquiries or investigations which then turned into a reference — a reference which in turn became a non-starter in accountability courts.

The Supreme Court regretted that delays in deciding cases were caused because NAB did not have proper supporting material before finalising a reference, which was essential to take the case to a logical conclusion.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom