ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court asked former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s lawyer to make a submission why the armed forces are excluded from the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

A three-judge special bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Monday, heard the constitutional petition of Imran Khan against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.

Khawaja Haris, representing Imran Khan, argued that the in the past, Supreme Court has intervened on many public interest matters and directed the Parliament to legislate. He submitted that in 2020, the apex court regarding the extension in the tenure of the former army chief granted Parliament six months and asked it to legislate about the extension of the army chief.

Imran Khan’s lawyer said in Asfandyar Wali case, the apex court had declared the amendments null and void. Justice Mansoor said the amendments in Asfandyar Wali’s case were declared null and void as those were contrary to fundamental rights. He asked the counsel: Are you telling the court to include those provisions which are missing in the law.

Justice Ijaz noted that after amendments in many provisions the NAB law has become toothless and ineffective, adding the petitioner is requesting the court to restore the law in its original form. Justice Mansoor said the clauses which have been amended are not against fundamental rights.

During the proceeding, Justice Mansoor asked Khawaja Haris to read Article 5 of NAO, 1999 and questioned why the armed forces are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NAB law, while the judges fall under this law. He asked the counsel what the constitutional and legal reasons to keep armed forces out of the NAB jurisdiction are.

Justice Mansoor further asked Khawaja Haris when the people have elected your client for five years then why they wanted decisions on issues of national importance made on the roads. The judge said if the members leave the Parliament and come on the roads, then how the democratic system would function. He said that the petitioner should have raised objections to the amendments in the Parliament instead of approaching the court.

The chief justice observed that there were many flaws in the NAO, adding could a person on the basis of mere allegations be arrested and kept in custody for 90 days. The amendments in the NAB law are good, while before these amendments the law was much criticised.

Khawaja Haris said he is not in favour of arrest during the investigation in criminal offences, including the NAO. He said even if the best laws are not implemented then those lose their effectiveness, adding that he does not want that the whole law is struck down.

Justice Mansoor asked what the general public is saying about the amendments. He further asked should the apex court determine that people are affected by the amendments in the NAB law.

The chief justice said in Darshan Masih case there was much hue and cry in the public and the media; therefore, the apex court had taken up that matter. He questioned whether there was uproar against the NAB amendments and whether the public has approached the Court against them. Khawaja Haris said the NGOs approached on behalf of Darshan Masih, adding he wish some NGOs also raise the corruption issue in the court.

Justice Mansoor said the petitions against the NAB amendments are also pending in the Islamabad High Court (IHC). He remarked would it not be unfair that their petitions become infructuous as they decide this matter.

The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022