ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was prayed to direct the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit details of references returned, and how many persons were acquitted after the enactment of five ordinances during the tenure of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Wednesday, heard former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, while arguing the case on behalf of the Federation, requested the bench to direct the NAB to inform the court that out of 386 cases how many were of the parliamentarians. He further said that the NAB may also directed to provide details of references returned, and how many acquittals were granted after the enactment of five ordinances during the regime of the PTI government to amend the NAO.

The NAO second amendment bill laid before the National Assembly was the combination of the amendments introduced by the previous government in the NAO through ordinances, adding the NAB second amendment was the continuation of the previous government’s ordinances.

The counsel argued that many references were returned as in those cases the offences related to the FBR; therefore, they were sent to the tax department. He said the NAB should also provide a list that how many applications were filed for acquittal after the enactment of ordinances.

Justice Mansoor Syed Ali Shah noted that there are several laws for controlling offences so it does not mean that a person once out of the NAB ambit will go scot-free or he cannot be tried by other courts or forums.

Makhdoom said in his opinion the accountability courts which have the power to acquit or punish persons should not have returned the references. He said there is no acquittal but their cases be sent to the other courts, if there is no power with the accountability courts to sentence someone after the amendments.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the case of the other side (petitioner) is that when the definition of the offences changed, and the standard of proof made difficult then there is no conviction under the NAB law.

He questioned how could redefine the offence and reset the standard of proof. retrospectively. The trials of references have been stalled. “It appears to me a grand amnesty,” added Justice Ijaz. He further said even if the trial is conducted it would be made slow and ineffective so the conviction becomes difficult.

Makhdoom asked Justice Ijaz that his observation is of tentative nature. Justice Ijaz said his observation is also of tentative nature, adding after hearing you (the lawyer) we will not close the file and go to the chambers and write the judgment. “We have to hear the arguments of both the parties and see the material on the file,” he added.

The federation’s counsel argued that there is another way to look at this law (the NAB amendments), which the court after examining may uphold the law rather than to strike it down. He said the burden of proof is on the other side (the petitioner). He contended that all over the world the courts strike down the law on real controversy between the two parties.

The chief justice questioned return of 386 references or stalling the trials on the NAB references by the Accountability Courts is not the fact in PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO 1999. He said that after the amendments in the NAO, the trial on references was stalled or returned.

The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023