ISLAMABAD: The federation’s counsel submitted that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) parliamentarians are, themselves, the architect of the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, while the incumbent government retained the amendments with subtle changes.
Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the PTI government had issued five ordinances for bringing changes in the NAB law, but now they are challenging their own amendments.
The chief justice said: “We like to see their own (PTI’s) amendments being challenged.”
The counsel informed that when Imran Khan was the prime minister, the PTI Minister for Finance and Minister for Information on TV channels stated that the decision-making in the government departments is paralysed and it (NAB law) has a chilling effect on the economy and the business.
He said now they (the PTI) should not step back regarding the amendments on the public office, politicians, and bureaucrats, adding the petitioner brought the political controversy in the Court.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Tuesday, heard former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.
Earlier, Attorney General for Pakistan said that yesterday (Monday) he had issued a clarification on the Chief Justice’s remarks that appeared on social media, adding that social media misreported his statement. Justice Bandial, appreciating the gesture, said; “Yes we have read it in the newspapers.”
AGP Shehzad Ata Elahi then said this (misreporting) should be nipped in the bud. He reminded the bench of two SC judgments guidelines set for reporting on pending cases. He then continued that the dilemma is that the PEMRA conducts inquiries on misreporting in TV channels, and there are also regulations for the print media, but there are no regulations for incorrect reporting on Twitter and Facebook.
The chief justice said that he saw some material on social media himself, adding; “I take it with patience and tolerance.” He further said the media should be careful about it. “I don’t believe in control, but it requires mutual respect.”
Makhdoom Ali Khan proposed to the bench to allow camera in the courtroom. If an official record is preserved and available, then such things will not happen, he said. The chief justice said; “We have dealt with this matter which will be referred to the Full Court.”
About the case, Makhdoom Ali Khan informed that an MNA gets Rs150,000 to Rs180,000 as salary, while the Chairman of the Standing Committee gets Rs25,000 extra per month. Besides that, he avails facilities for travelling and lodges.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah questioned is there any obligation of the parliamentarians with regard to the constitution? The counsel replied that if a person is elected then it is his/ her responsibility to attend the parliament and participate in the legislation and make or block the legislation. He further submitted that if an MP remains out of the parliament for consecutive 40 days then he/ she is de-seated. However, the incumbent Speaker NA did not choose this option.
Makhdoom argued that on 28-07-22 some of the PTI MNAs filed a writ petition before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), wherein, they challenged the non-acceptance of their resignations and told the Court that ex-Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri had validly accepted the resignation and the incumbent Speaker (Raja Pervaiz Ashraf) is bound by his ruling. The IHC, however, dismissed their petition on 6-9-2022.
He submitted when the NA Speaker accepted their resignations they approached Lahore High Court (LHC) on 8th February 2023 and took a completely different view. They asked the LHC to restrain the Election Commission of Pakistan from de-notifying them.
Makhdoom informed that on 11-04-22 when the no-confidence vote succeeded against Imran Khan at that time amendments in the NAO, 1999 were pending before the Standing Committee of the Parliament. After the no-trust vote though the PTI MNAs chose to resign but none of its senators or MPAs resigned from the provincial assemblies. It shows the inconsistent bona fide of the petitioner, adding there is inconsistency in their legal battle.
Makhdoom argued that in constitutional cases which have political ramifications then the US Supreme Court says it will not decide them.
The chief justice said the political disputes can be decided if they violate Fundamental Rights.
The counsel submitted that the Court dismissed the Watan Party’s petition declaring the petitioner has no locus standi and bona fide. In Tahirul Qadri case, the apex court held that a citizen, who approaches the court has to establish his locus standi and the bona fide. The hearing was adjourned until today (Wednesday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.