ISLAMABAD Differences emerged between Acting Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Javid Zia Qazi and Prosecutor General Irfan Qadir over the induction of people in the Prosecution Section of the department and the latter left the meeting in protest when the Acting Chairman insisted to get his men inducted. Sources in the department informed TheNation that Javid Zia Qazi wanted to induct the lawyers of his choice in the Prosecution Section while Irfan Qadir was of the view that the appointment of prosecutors was purely his domain and even a full-fledged chairman is not authorised to intervene in the matter what to speak of the Acting Chairman NAB. The sources further informed that the things got worse during the administrative board meeting of the department when on the issue of appointment of prosecutors, the Acting Chairman NAB and Prosecutor General exchanged hot words. Later, the Prosecutor General left the meeting in protest. The sources said that Prosecutor General NAB Irfan Qadir wanted freehand in the appointment of his team while Acting Chairman NAB Javid Zia Qazi wanted to fill the vacancies with the list of lawyers given to him by the Ministry of Law. The sources said that Irfan Qadir too has little objection on accommodation of the lawyers recommended by the Ministry of Law but at the same time he wanted to induct some of his loyalists. He also wanted that the whole process should be channelled through him. Several attempts were made to contact Irfan Qadir but he did not pick his cell phone. However, when Acting Chairman NAB Javid Zia Qazi was approached, he declined to comment on the situation and simply asked to approach Irfan Qadir for the confirmation or denial of the news. The sources in the department said that status of both Acting Chairman NAB Javid Zia Qazi and Prosecutor General NAB Irfan Qadir was challenged in the apex court, as under the NAB law Acting Chairman was not authorised to dispense the duties of the Chairman. Whereas in the case of Prosecutor General Irfan Qadir, under the law a person could not hold the slot twice because he had held the same post in the past.