SHAHID ORAKAZI versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW, MINISTRY OF LAW, ISLAMABAD
Article ((b) (i) Appointment of Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau by the President of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article ?44 (Jud)) on two different dates of appointment of Chairman of the same person as Judicial Reviewer on two different dates. The dates, which were months away from each other, could not establish the disappearance or volatility of the first appointment of the chairman or the adoption of such stagnation or procedure from the time spent in office in this regard. You can establish continuity over that period, neither the office of this person nor can it give effect to that person's second appointment after the first appointment. So that in practice it can be presented as a continuation of his first appointment or a continuation of his first appointment - the person to whom the notification was withdrawn / called back and the second time to the same office. I had to set it up even in a confirmatory notification trying to rectify any inaccuracies that occurred at the first meeting, as the subsequent notification in this case would have explained it as well, but it certainly did. Did not say so and instead called back the notification clearly and implicitly and canceled the first appointment. There were two appointments of the same person, all intentions and purposes as well as two, two separate and separate appointments for all legal consequences as well as the spirit of section 6 (b) (i) of the national accountability. The basic rights of the people, including their right to life, liberty, law enforcement, fair trial and access to justice, were affected by the Ordinance, 1999, and such unlawful appointments.
