ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, reserved judgment on the petition of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman against the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.
After hearing the parties’ lawyers, the chief justice thanked everyone saying; “Cooperation and valuable assistance rendered by petitioner’s counsel Khawaja Haris, the federation’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan and prosecutor general NAB was great.” “We will retire to consider and reserve it, and announce the decision soon,” CJP Bandial said. “Something short and sweet should come out, that may be done soon,” he added.
A three-judge bench, headed by CJP Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition, which he had filed on June 25, 2022, challenging changes in various provisions of the NAO to the benefit influential accused persons and legitimise corruption of those whose case were pending before the Accountability Courts. In a total of 52 hearings, Haris pleaded his case in 29 hearings, while Makhdoom argued in 20 proceedings.
Imran Khan challenges NAB law amendment in Supreme Court
The chief justice has appreciated some amendments – to exclude civil servants from the NAB ambit; a reduction of remand from 90 days, and not to arrest the alleged accused at the inquiry and investigation stage. He, however, objected to the amendments made for the benefit of people, as certain offences in NAO were deleted or modified, and the procedure changed. The evidenciary requirement was changed to make the cases before the accountability courts cumbersome, and the immunity was granted to some persons.
The chief justice also opposed the fixation of a Rs500 million limit for the cases triable under the NAB law, due to that relief was given to X number of people, and several cases were transferred from the Accountability Courts.
Justice Mansoor’s stance on the petition had been no individual, institution, Bar Association Council, or political party has come forward against the amendments in the NAO, but only one individual who ran away from the Parliament has challenged them.
He, in a number of hearings, demanded that Haris point out the violation of fundamental rights, which has been alleged by the petitioner. He said in the ImranaTiwana case, this court had held there should be an explicit violation of fundamental rights. He asked the counsel to leave this matter to the next parliament.
In the last four hearings, Justice Mansoor has urged for a full court to hear the case, citing the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act is still pending, though an eight-member bench suspended its operation.
CJP Bandial had opposed it, noting that his retirement was near and the matter had already been pending before the court for a considerable time — since July 2022.
The court instructed the Attorney General (AG) to provide a written report on this matter. However, the additional attorney general apologised to the court for the AG’s absence, citing that he was currently out of the country.
During the proceeding, the NAB additional prosecutor general informed that in 2022, after the amendments, 386 were returned, while 24 cases were transferred from Accountability Courts to other courts, including banking courts, and various authorities. In 2023, cases returned were 212, while 30 cases were sent to other courts and authorities. He said that the cases were returned not only because of Rs500 million limit but due to misuse of authority without gaining any monetary benefits.
Earlier, Justice Mansoor remarked that the reason given for submitting this petition before the apex court was stated to be “accountability”. Why then was a serving army officer excluded, inquired the judge.
He recalled that regarding the AsfandyarWali case, the court was informed that the Army Act is available to deal with cases pertaining to military officers. “In this vein, the Civil Servants Act is present for the bureaucracy and the Election Act is there for parliamentarians,” observed Justice Mansoor.
Haris responded that the petition has not challenged clause 5(m) of the existing NAB law, which grants exemption to serving army officers.
In response to another question, Haris said that the Civil Servants Act provides only for departmental action in cases pertaining to corruption, not criminal punishments.
The CJP inquired that if the Supreme Judicial Council removes a judge from his post as per Article 209 over concerns relating to graft, then who will do the recovery. “We are not looking at the petitioner’s conduct. We are only concerned with whether the legislation violates fundamental rights or public interest,” he said.
The additional attorney general informed the court that the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) will submit his reply.
At the end of the hearing, the chief justice reserved the judgment.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.