–Justice (r) Iqbal says it’s ‘impossible for 25 courts to adjudicate and finalise 1,226 cases within 30 days’
–Says timelines be set to decide miscellaneous applications and those found frivolous be dismissed with costs
ISLAMABAD: National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Justice (r) Javed Iqbal on Saturday blamed the shortage of accountability courts for the delay in deciding corruption cases – a couple of days after the apex court held the anti-graft body responsible for the problem.
In a report submitted to the Supreme Court in pursuance of its order on July 8 on reasons behind the delay in trials, the NAB chief pointed out that with the present strength of accountability courts and the workload of cases pending adjudication — each of them currently handling 50 references on an average — it was practically “impossible to adjudicate and finalise matters within 30 days”.
Under Section 16(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 a timeframe of 30 days is set for the conclusion of trial by a court and it is required to conduct proceedings on day-to-day basis.
The top court has already ordered the law secretary to seek the government’s instructions for setting up at least 120 accountability courts to deal with a huge backlog of cases.
The NAB chairman informed that court that there were 25 accountability courts presently dealing with 1,226 references.
He pointed out 260 cases were pending adjudication in five accountability courts in the Karachi/Hyderabad region, 303 in five courts in Lahore, 190 in seven courts in the Rawalpindi/Islamabad/Gilgit-Baltistan region, 43 in four courts in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, 218 in two courts in Balochistan and 94 in 43 in one court each in Multan and Sukkur respectively.
“The only way out of this faux pas is to increase the strength of the accountability courts,” he added.
Citing other reasons for the delay, the NAB chairman stated in the report that the defence filed miscellaneous applications in which interlocutory orders were passed by accountability courts.
“This results in stalling and delay in the main proceedings. To curb this tendency, timelines be set to decide such applications and frivolous applications be dismissed with costs,” he recommended.
He added that to further complicate matters, these orders were assailed with appellate forums wherein at times stay orders were granted and proceedings were suspended. “Therefore timelines be also set to finalise these matters within the stipulated time.”
Highlighting another drawback, the NAB chief noted accountability courts were empowered under Section 179(c) of the NAO, 1999 to apply the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure expeditious disposal but the procedure was “hardly adopted or followed”.
The head of the anti-graft body mentioned the long list of witnesses because of the present legal requirements as the “biggest hurdle in smooth proceedings” and “causing massive delays” in trial.
“To offset this malady,” he added, “the procedure and mechanism as contained in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance which has been enacted for a similar purpose can be resorted to.”
He further recommended that the court should frame charges immediately after examining the material provided to it as the spirit of the Section 18(g) of the NAO, 1999 postulated that the after the appraisal of evidence, the opinion of the NAB chairman was enough to justify the filing of a reference.
“NAB, on its part, undertakes that henceforth no adjournment shall be taken any prosecutor for any reason whatsoever,” he added.
The NAB chairman also proposed setting guidelines for the law ministry to finalise the name of an accountability court judge within 10 days. He also suggested increasing the tenure of an accountability court judge from three years to five years.
It was also recommended that a timeline be set for mutual legal assistance pertaining to foreign jurisdiction as the expression “politically exposed persons” was misconstrued by courts and NAB was required to await the receipt of information.
The NAB chairman also noted that “proceedings against abscondence as envisaged in NAO, 1999” were not invoked and the other option was to obtain custody of an accused was through the process of extradition seeking help from the Interpol that required an extradition treaty. He added that he had taken up the matter with the president to devise a mechanism to address it.
The anti-graft body chief also sought fixing of a date to decide the matter of voluntary returns.
It was also pointed out that Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to declare an accused a proclaimed offender was a lengthy process.
The NAB chairman contended that the basic requirements and parameters for the grant of bail set by the Supreme Court in the cases the Talat Ishaque, Asfandyar Wali and Nawaz Sharif cases were not given effect to.
In conclusion, the NAB chief suggested acquiring the services of retired judges for the proposed 120 accountability courts in case there were not enough district and sessions judges to fill the slots.
BACKGROUND:
A three-member bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Yahya Afridi, had asked the authorities to form 120 courts during the hearing of a case regarding the delay in the trial of cases by the accountability courts in the light of Section 16 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 requiring a decision of NAB cases within 30 days.
The court in its order said five accountability courts were vacant in Pakistan, whereas 1,226 cases were pending. The bench said no reason had been given as to why the vacant posts had not been filled up till now.
“We are unable to understand the rationale or logic behind the courts [remaining] vacant for long periods by the relevant authorities. More so when we see that the cases before the accountability court are to be decided in terms of law within 30 days.
“The courts keep lying vacant for even years and cases of that court remain pending,” the court order stated. The bench said the whole purpose of making of accountability law apparently seemed to be rendered futile if the courts were allowed to remain vacant.
The bench noted that the number of pendency of cases in the accountability court demands more than a hundred number of judges/courts for dealing with and deciding these cases, as these references were being filed regularly and their numbers were also increasing while the numbers of courts were totally stagnant.
On Monday, the apex court had criticised NAB for its “lack of professionalism, expertise, and sincerity of cause” which it said was the reason behind “the conviction rate in NAB cases is abysmally low.”
In its 87-page written verdict by Justice Maqbool Baqir in the Paragon housing reference, the apex court said that it was an unfortunate fact that the people of Pakistan were not getting their constitutional rights despite the formation of the country since 72 years and its constitution since 47 years.
“The law mandates investigations to be concluded expeditiously and trials to be concluded within 30 days,” reads the verdict.
