NAO: CJP asks counsel to highlight provisions violating fundamental rights

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said that challenging to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law amendments is not based on concrete facts and that violation of fundamental rights needs to be connected with the amended provisions of the law.

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 National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

The chief justice questioned what the precise objection is. He asked the PTI chief’s counsel that he would have to show how the petition is maintainable, and have to highlight which provisions are violating the fundamental rights.

The court noted that the challenge to the amendments seemed to be based on speculation.

The chief justice asked Khawaja Haris, who was representing Imran Khan that the petitioner could approach the relevant forum against the third amendment in the NAB, passed in the joint session of the Parliament. Haris said that there is a worldwide practice that courts judicially review the laws, and declare them void if they violate the fundamental rights.

The chief justice said many times, the Court had asked the Parliament to legislate on certain issues. He said the law does not mean to maintain law and order, but it is also introduced for the progressive system.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, appearing on behalf of the Federation, argued through a video link from SC Karachi Registry. He maintained that the moment the Supreme Court is put on the top of the tiers, described in the constitution, then it is not right for federalism.

The chief justice said that the court is conscious of extraordinary availability of the counsels and the hard work they demonstrated. He said so far, 46 hearings have been conducted, out of that, in 26 hearing Haris and in 20 hearings Makhdoom argued the case. “Now we want know how to shorten the case, because Makhdoom Ali, as an expert, remains engaged in international arbitration, and next month he is going again.”

The chief justice further said that from June 15, summer vacation in courts will start. He said this bench may not be available to sit and hear the case.

The Court; therefore, asked both lawyers to put their arguments in writing and submit a concise statement of 10 to 15 pages by next week. We would collate them and the material already submitted and if there will be a need for clarification, then we shall fix the matter for further hearing.

The chief justice said many of the provisions of the NAB amendments are alright. He observed that many amendments in the NAO were introduced by the PTI government. He asked Haris to point out error in the amendments, and show which provision of it are violative of the constitution and fundamental right.

Makhdoom told the bench that yesterday (May 15) joint session of the parliament approved another amendment. He inquired whether the petitioner would challenge this amendment, as well. He said once the objection is filed on the latest amendment then he would respond to it. He questioned how this law is violative of fundamental rights and how it is ex-facie discriminatory in manner.

Makhdoom submitted that the petitioner for his own benefit relied upon the Amendment 2022 in the Islamabad High Court and the Accountability Court. “For the first time in the constitutional history a Prime Minister has passed a law and when he ceased to be in power he challenged it in the Court.” He said the petitioner has benefited from the amendments, but does not want others also benefit. The case was adjourned for an indefinite period.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023