IHC Seeks Evidence in Challenge to NAB Deputy Chairman, Prosecutor General Appointments

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the National Accountability Bureau, the Ministry of Law and other respondents on a petition challenging the NAB appointments of the bureau’s Deputy Chairman Ihtesham Qadir Shah and Prosecutor General Sohail Nasir. The court directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence that the two officers did not meet the legal requirements for their posts.

Justice Umair Majid Malik heard the petition, filed in the nature of quo warranto by Advocate Dr G.M. Chaudhry. The judge observed that the petitioner had “completely ruined the entire case” after arguing that Nasir had wrongly described himself as a former judge despite serving only as an additional judge of the Lahore High Court.

Justice Malik remarked with a smile, “In that case, you might as well remove our badges too, as we are also currently serving as additional judges.”

NAB appointments challenged on qualification grounds

Dr Chaudhry argued that Shah did not meet the qualifications laid down in Section 7(aa) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. He said Shah had earlier served as NAB prosecutor general, a post that did not qualify him as a federal government officer in Grade 21 or its equivalent.

The petitioner added that Shah was neither an armed forces officer holding the rank of major general nor its equivalent, the other route to the deputy’s chair under the ordinance.

On Nasir, the petition said he failed the test in Section 8(a) of the NAO, which requires a NAB prosecutor general to be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. The petitioner said Nasir had served as a sessions judge before becoming an additional judge of the Lahore High Court, but was never confirmed. He therefore did not meet the bar under Article 177(2) of the Constitution, the petition argued.

Notices were also issued on miscellaneous applications. These sought to restrain the deputy chairman and prosecutor general from performing their duties and to summon the records of their appointments.

NAB under the spotlight

The case lands at a sensitive moment for the accountability bureau. Its chairman has asked for the graft probe threshold to be cut from Rs500 million to Rs50 million, while claiming recoveries of Rs14.6 trillion this year, as reported earlier. A challenge to the bureau’s top two appointments, if it gains traction, could complicate that agenda.

The judiciary has been active on accountability-adjacent questions this week. The Supreme Court issued a notable ruling on reasonable doubt in bail cases, as covered here, while courts in Rawalpindi were paralysed by a lawyers’ strike after a judge was attacked in his chamber, reported separately.

The petition also touches a live political nerve. NAB’s cases have long shaped the fate of opposition leaders, including Imran Khan’s sisters, whose 30-day detention was recently taken to the Lahore High Court, as reported here.

What happens next

The court has put the burden of proof squarely on the petitioner. Dr Chaudhry must now produce documents showing that Shah and Nasir fall short of the statutory qualifications. If he fails, the petition is likely to collapse. If he succeeds, the bureau could face a leadership crisis at the very moment it seeks wider powers.

The case will be watched closely in legal and political circles, given NAB’s central role in Pakistan’s accountability landscape.

*Source: Dawn*

Who challenged the NAB appointments?

Advocate Dr G.M. Chaudhry filed a quo warranto petition in the Islamabad High Court against the appointments of Deputy Chairman Ihtesham Qadir Shah and Prosecutor General Sohail Nasir.

On what grounds were the appointments challenged?

The petition says Shah does not meet Section 7(aa) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that Nasir does not meet Section 8(a), which requires the prosecutor general to be qualified for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.

What did the court order?

Justice Umair Majid Malik issued notices to NAB, the Ministry of Law and other respondents, and directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence backing his claims about the officers’ qualifications.