ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) for an indefinite period without allowing former Prime Minister Imran Khan to speak.
A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, on Thursday, heard the intra-court appeal (ICA) of the Federation and the petitions of some individuals, whose applications have been pending before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s founder Imran Khan attended the hearing via video link from Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi. Throughout the proceeding, Imran seemed uninterested, kept changing his position, and rested his face on his hand.
This was Imran Khan’s first public appearance since his arrest from Zaman Park in August last year in Toshakhana case. PTI leaders – Shibli Faraz, Muhammad Ali Khan, Faisal Javed, and many others including Khan’s sisters were present during the hearing.
The court did not allow the hearing to be live-streamed as expected by thousands of Khan’s supporters. Some pictures of the former prime minister; however, were leaked on social media. The Supreme Court initiated an investigation into Imran’s pictures going viral from within the courtroom.
It was believed that screenshots were taken by someone sitting on the left side of the courtroom. The police deputed for the apex court’s security questioned individuals and also intensified security checks for people entering the courtroom.
The bench in the last hearing had allowed Imran to appear through video-link as he had filed the petition challenging the amendments made in the NAO, 1999. The case was heard for almost two-and-a-half-hour without break.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Athar addressing the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) said, “Have you (the government and the agencies) started threatening the judges with proxies, who say that they would turn the turbans into a football?
“This does not and will not deter and intimidate any judge, but they are exposing themselves.”
Justice Athar said respondent No1, will also appear on the next date through video-link and cannot go anywhere from Adiala jail.
The short order, dictated in the court, says; “The Respondent No1 Imran Khan Niazi connected with video-link from Adiala Jail and this will continue on the next date. Khawaja Haris is in attendance and stated that he is not charging bill to the federal government, and appearing in the matter.”
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the federation, argued the case.
The chief justice told him to speak up a little louder so that Respondent No1 (Imran Khan) could also hear him. Makhdoom submitted that though the proceeding started before the IHC regarding the matter (the NAB amendments), but the majority judgment of the Supreme Court did not mention it.
A three-judge bench, headed by former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on September 15 by a majority of 2:1 declared the amendments null and void and ordered the reopening of all corruption cases worth less than Rs500 million that were previously closed against political leaders from various parties and public office holders.
Last year, Imran Khan, through a number of lawyers including senior advocate Khawaja Haris, filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.
Makhdoom submitted that Respondent No1, who had challenged the amendments, initially attended the court proceeding along with former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. He said that 53 hearings were held of the case, out of them, the petitioner’s counsel consumed 27 sessions, while the defence side argued in 19 proceedings.
He said that it is an entirely political case because the rationale of the legislature has been accepted by respondent no1, adding that the political differences instead of being settled in the Parliament are brought to the courts. He submitted that the petitioner’s party had 182 lawmakers in the Parliament, and they could have easily defeated the NAB amendments bill in the Parliament.
The chief justice remarked why the politicians avoid the democratic process to impose the will of one person. Why the ordinances were issued instead of legislation in the Parliament?
Makhdoom further argued that the matter became a political question because first, the respondent was in favour of changes in the NAO, 1999, but when he was not in power he challenged the law. He said according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tahirul Qadri case, the antecedents are important and need to be looked at in deciding the petition.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.