ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned under what law or constitutional provision immunity is available to the serving members of the armed forces from accountability.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said the prime minister and the chief ministers have protection under Article 248 of the constitution for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices then under which legal provision the immunity from accountability is available to the serving army officers?
A three-judge special bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Wednesday, heard the constitutional petition of PTI Chairman Imran Khan against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.
The court offered Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) MNAs to resolve their resignation issue by directing to the speaker National Assembly to accept the PTI MNAs resignation within four days.
SC says misuse of NAO hurt many businesses
During the proceeding, Justice Mansoor said: “If we (the SC) ask (the NA speaker) to accept their resignations within four days then their (the PTI leaders’) issue will be resolved.” He said they cannot leave the Parliament empty, adding why the PTI that believes in the rule of law and the Constitution has not approached the courts, when the resignations are not being accepted. He noted that the PTI MNAs say they have resigned but are still drawing salaries, adding the PTI has kept the NA seats hanging; therefore, rendering parliamentary democracy non-functioning.
Justice Mansoor said when the speaker had asked them to appear before him for confirmation of their resignation, then why they are not going, despite the fact the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had asked them to go to the speaker.
Khawaja Haris, representing PTI Chairman Imran Khan, argued that when the NA speaker had accepted some of the PTI members’ resignations, who did not appear before him, then why he is not accepting the others’ resignations. The chief justice observed that the PTI contested by-election but is not going to the Assembly, which is the idea to put the state in a cycle of elections.
Justice Ijaz remarked that this is a political debate and should go in the political arena, adding the petitioner cannot be deprived to bring the matter (against amendments) before the Court as he has tendered resignation.
However, Justice Mansoor stated this is not a political question, but a constitutional one. He asked the counsel to go to the court for acceptance of their resignation.
To a question why the armed forces are excluded from the ambit of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, Khawaja Haris said that army officers are exempted from the NAB jurisdiction when they are in service, but action can be taken against them after they resigned, retired or discharged from service.
Justice Mansoor observed that the action against Admiral Mansoor was taken after his retirement. Khawaja Haris contended that action under the NAB could be taken if armed forces personnel are working in any public corporation, bank, financial institution, undertaking or other organisation established, controlled or administered by or under the federal government or a provincial government.
The counsel said serving officers are excluded from the NAB as their cases are dealt under the Army Act. Justice Mansoor questioned then why civil servants, even they are active in service could be proceeded under the NAB law, asking is this not discrimination. Khawaja Haris said this needs to be legislated by the Parliament.
Justice Ijaz said the army officers excluded from the NAB’s ambit only for the period they are in service, adding that exclusion is also not available to those army personnel who are working in public corporation, banks, and financial institutions.
Khawaja Haris argued that the rational for protection is for the security and welfare of the army officers. Justice Ijaz remarked that the kind of the job they (the army officers) do is related to national security. There is an internal mechanism of the army to control corruption and the results of it are stricter than the normal law, he added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.