Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry has repeated the government stance that the Prime Minister will not consult the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly on the fresh appointment of a NAB Chairman. His reason, given during a press talk in Jhelum, is that he Leader concerned, Mian Shehbaz Sharif, is a NAB accused, and it would amount to consulting an accused over his investigating officer. The NAB Ordinance has protection from the Constitution, with the procedure to amend it being the same as the Constitution, and it provides that the Chairman is to be appointed by the President on the advice of the PM, after consulting the Leader of the Opposition. Mian Shehbaz does not insist on a personal consultation, content to be consulted by letter over the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, but what Mr Chaudhry has said is against the law.
If there is a reference against the Prime Minister, is he estopped from advising the President? The Leader of the Opposition has not only been elected an MNA by his constituency, but chosen by the Opposition as its Leader. If either he, or the PM, or both are contesting the next election, are they stopped from mutual consultation about the caretaker PM? It is for the Opposition Leader to recuse himself from consultation because he is a NAB accused, not for the government to refuse to contact him on that ground.
The problem is illustrated in this instance. Mr Chaudhry would say that Mr Sharif is a bad person, and point to the NAB cases against him. Mr Sharif might point out, with support from a Supreme Court judgment, that NAB has been used by the government as a tool against opponents, including himself. The government’s wish to reappoint the incumbent illustrates this. It then comes down to the President, who is a former party secretary general. He will have to choose between his former party loyalty and his present office, which binds him not just to follow the Constitution and law himself, but to ensure that others do so when tendering him advice. There is much wrong with NAB, the NAB law and its way of operation; it does not need a head whose legality is doubtful. Not much worse can be imagined for an accountability mechanism.
