The Accountability Courts acquittal of Interior Minister and ex-Chairman Steel Mills in NABs corruption references was not surprising in the least. The Interior Minister, against whom his underlings of the FIA also recently withdrew some pending cases, has termed his acquittal as a 'triumph of justice. Some obvious questions arise. With NAB quite effectively strangulated due to strict government control, can it be perceived to have the ability to pursue the NRO cases in just and transparent manner? How can the NAB prosecutors with known political affiliations that were appointed in early 2009, honestly prosecute their own corrupt appointing authorities? With the top NRO accused clung like vampire bats to their government posts, can the prosecution witnesses be expected to dare testify against them? The Supreme Court has instructed NAB to 'effectively pursue the NRO cases but can anyone at the SC/HCs actually monitor that it does so? Under what NAB law are the dozen or so boxes containing records of Swiss cases still lying at our London High Commission? When prosecutors start playing the role of defence counsels, how can the justice be expected to prevail? Two years have passed since the PM declared in his inaugural speech to the parliament that NAB would be replaced by the new Accountability Commission. That has not happened. That makes sense because if the present NAB can meet the ruling partys 'requirements, why would the government take the chance of setting up the proposed independent accountability set-up headed by at retired justice as its chairman? With the NABs conviction rate plunging from a record high of almost 67% in early 2008 to around 56% by the end of 2009, the accountability process would only be deemed fair, transparent and meaningful now if the NAB appoints non-political prosecutors and is led by the likes of Justices Ramday or Bhagwandas. -BRIG (RETD) FAROOQ HAMEED KHAN, Lahore, March 9.