ISLAMABAD, May 31: Three days after the Supreme Court set aside his appointment as chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), retired Admiral Fasih Bokhari on Friday moved a petition before the SC seeking review of the court’s judgment.

In his petition, Admiral Bokhari pleaded that the findings of the court were devoid of legal or logical basis and were a “clear violation of section 6 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999”.

The petition contended that the president was not answerable to the SC with regard to appointment of the NAB chairman.

It said the July 31, 2009 judgment of the SC that declared the Nov 3, 2007 proclamation of emergency illegal had become the basis for NRO, 2007, which was extended by means of that judgment in violation of article 89 of the constitution.

This extension of the ordinance beyond four months provided the basis for the court and the petitioners who had challenged the NRO to “completely paralyse the functioning of the NAB” which was taken over by the Supreme Court.

The petition argued that the short order was devoid of any reasons whatsoever which could even remotely establish that the appointment of the NAB chairman was in violation of section 6 of the NAO.

The review petition contended that the NAB chairman could only be removed by the president once he had been appointed to the position.

Also on Friday, the apex court issued detailed version of the short order it issued on Tuesday on a petition filed by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, a former leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, about 19 months ago.

An irresistible and unavoidable conclusion suggested a failure on the part of President Asif Ali Zardari to make any serious, sincere and genuine effort to evolve a consensus with Chaudhry Nisar over the appointment of Admiral Bokhari as NAB chairman, said the detailed judgment.

Justifying reasons for holding the appointment illegal, the verdict said: “We have entertained no manner of doubt that proper consultation as required by the provisions of Section 6(b i) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, and as interpreted by this court in various judgments … had not taken place in the present case before the appointment of Admiral Bokhari.”

Authored by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, the verdict expressed concern over the haste shown by the president after writing a letter on Oct 9, 2011 to Chaudhry Nisar and said this was not understandable as the federal government had already slept over the matter of appointment of the NAB chairman for about three months.

It highlighted the role of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in such appointments as a consultee and in his capacity as a guardian and defender of the constitutional and legal rights of the people.

The chief justice could play a salutary role in such appointments, particularly when there is a serious difference of opinion between other consultees over the proposed appointment of the NAB chairman, said the verdict.

The role of the chief justice as a neutral arbiter in disagreements, differences or disputes over issues of national importance already stood recognised by the constitution through Articles 152 and 159(4).

The verdict reiterated the importance of consulting the chief justice in the matter of appointment of NAB chairman and expressed the hope that recommendations and suggestions repeatedly made by the court through different judgments would be given effect in all future appointments to that office.

“We entertain no manner of doubt that anybody interested in making an honest and good appointment to that office would not feel shy of consulting the chief justice in that connection,” it said.

According to the verdict, the leader of opposition in the NA does not represent just his/her own political party in the National Assembly, but the entire opposition in the house.

Explaining why a person of eminence and prestige should be appointed as NAB chairman, the verdict said the president had to consult him for the appointment of a deputy chairman, prosecutor general (accountability) and all other officers of the bureau.

Moreover, the NAB chairman was the one to decide whether or not to make a reference with respect to corruption or corrupt practices and no court could take cognizance of any such offence unless such a reference was made by him or by an officer authorised by him.