PESHAWAR, Oct 15: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday declared that the authority of the National Accountability Bureau’s chairman to grant pardon to an accused during a trial was in accordance with the Constitution.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Nasirul Mulk and Justice Ijaz Afzal dismissed a writ petition of a former NWFP chief secretary Khalid Aziz, challenging the amendments to the NAB Ordinance, 1999, in which the chairman had been empowered to grant pardon to an accused during a trial.

Prior to the amendment, the chairman could only tender pardon to an accused or accomplice at a stage where investigation was being carried out.

The president of Pakistan promulgated the NAB (Amendment) Ordinance in Nov 2002 through which various amendments were made to the NAB Ordinance.

Section 26 of the ordinance was also amended and the powers of the chairman were enhanced in granting pardon to an accused provided he disclosed all the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner has been facing a trial by an accountability court along with a former director of Primary Education Department Shahjehan Khan and an ex-accountant Khadim Hussain.

Advocate Zaffar Abbas Zaidi appeared for the petitioner and argued that the amendment to the NAB Ordinance was in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution pertaining to the independence of the judiciary. He contended that once a trial began, the chairman had no powers to interfere with it.

Mr Zaidi said the amendment made by the president was unconstitutional. He added that under the Article 175 the judiciary should function independently.

The counsel said that these amendments were aimed at turning a judgment of the High Court useless.

 He informed that the petitioner had earlier challenged the tendering of pardon to a co-accused, Shahjehan Khan, by the chairman during trial.

Mr Zaidi stated that the High Court had accepted that petition and declared the turning of approver of an accused during a trial as illegal.

The deputy prosecutor-general NAB Mian Fasihul Mulk argued that the president of Pakistan was fully empowered to make the said amendments. He contended that the amendments had not affected the independence of the judiciary.