KARACHI: In a decision hailed by opposition parties as their first victory in the legalbattle against a controversial law, the Sindh High Court on Wednesday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to proceed with the inquiries and investigations pending before it till further orders.

Headed by Chief Justice Ahmed AllM. Sheikh, a two-judge bench also directed the accountability courts to continue proceeding with the NAB references pending disposal before them.

The bench was hearing a set of petitions against the new provincial law that repeals applicability of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), better known as the NAB Ordinance, in Sindh.

The move to enact the law had been vehemently opposed by the opposition. Having failed to block the law, the opposition then challenged the law in court.

The Muttahida Qaumi Qaumi Movement, the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional (PML-F), the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) as well as civil rights campaigners filed peti-tions in the SHC against the law.

During the court proceedings, Additional Attorney General Salman Talibuddin and NAB Prosecutor General Waqas Qadeer Dar sought one week for filing comments on behalf of the federal government and NAB.

Granting their request, the court adjourned the matter to Aug 22.

Earlier, the court directed the NAB prosecutorgeneralto place onrecord a complete list of incumbent and former members of the Sindh Assembly, who were being investigated by the bureau.

The bench also directed Sindh Advocate General Zamir Ghumro to place on record the minutes of the deliberations of the assembly members prior to the passage of the bill.

The AG was also asked to confirm tothe court if the bill was placed before any sub-committee for deliberations before being presented in the assembly.

The court also asked the AAG and the NAB prosecutor general to verify if the new law had been challenged in the Supreme Court.

`In the meanwhile, NAB shall proceed with the inquiries and investigations, pending before it and simultaneously the Accountability Courts shall continue proceeding with the references fixed before them,` the court ruled.

The opposition parties have termed the SHC order their first victors in the `joint legal battle` against the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)`s `dictatorial mindset of the governance.

In a major policy decision, the pro-vincial government last month tabled the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 Sindh Repeal Bill, 2017 in the provincial assembly to repeal the applicability of the NAB Ordinance in the province. Taking advantage of its numerical strength in the assembly, the ruling PPP managed to get the bill passed, which repealed the applicability of the NAB Ordinance to departments and autonomous bodies controlled by the provincial government. It also approved establishment of a provincialaccountabilityagencytoreplace the Anti-Corruption Establishment.

According to the petitioners, the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 Sindh Repeal Act, 2017 is an attempt by the PPP, the ruling party in the province, to `protect its corruption`. They claim that the law is against the basic scheme of the Constitution.

Sindh Governor Mohammad Zubairhadrefused tosign the bill and sent it back to the provincial government with objections after it was first approved by the assembly on July 3. Later on July 27, the assembly passed a new draft bill after the Sindh cabinet discussed observations of the governor.

However, the governor did not give his assent the second time either.

Under the new law, the Sindh government will establish accountability courts in the province, each of which will be headed by a district and sessions judge (DJ) or a person qualified to be appointed as DJ.

An accountability commission will also be set up which will comprise chairman, director general and director-investigation of the agency and the provincial advocate general and prosecutor general. The agency will review progress of corruption cases and recommend measures for eradication of corruption.

Meanwhile, in a letter to theprovincial departments, commissioners and deputy commissioners on Friday, the Sindh government stated that with the revocation of the NAB Ordinance, all corruption cases, inquiries and complaints would now be probed by the provincial Anti-Corruption Establishment.

The letter said with the new law in effect, NAB would now have no role in the province and would investigate cases related to federal institutions only.

`A milestone decision` Welcoming the court order, the PTPs Khurrum Sher Zaman, a Sindh Assembly member and one of the petitioners, said, `It`s a milestone decision which further strengthens people`s faith in the courts. It`s just a beginning of our legal battle against this black law.

`At the time when the Supreme Court disqualified the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and referred corruption cases against him and his family to NAB, the PPP government in Sindh tried to weaken the institution,` Mr Zaman said.

On the other hand, PPP MPA Saeed Ghani defended the enactment and execution of the new law, saying, `What we have donein Sindh is nothing new. In KP [Khyber Pakhtunkhwa], the PTI government has set up the provincial accountability commission but here [in Sindh] it opposes the same policy when it`s adopted by the PPP government.

Under the law, he said, the Sindh Assembly speaker would be chairman of the anti-corruption body and if the opposition parties had any objection to the speaker (holding the other office) it could be debated in the assembly.

However, Nusrat Seher Abbasi of the PML-F another MPA who has challenged the new law in the court does not agree with Mr Ghani`s assertions.

Being a member of the legislators` committee which had discussed the draft of the law when it was proposed, she claimed to have had experience which suggested the PPP`s `ill intentions` behind the law.

`Everyone knows whether it`s the Sindh Assembly`s speaker or deputy speaker, they are not impartial,` she said. `Even while chairing the assembly sessions, they remain biased and don`t give a level playing field to members of both sides. How one can trust the speaker to stay impartial while heading such a key body?`