ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was informed that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, former president Asif Ali Zardari, National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, and many businessmen and bureaucrats benefited from the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.
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 NAO, 1999.
The NAB prosecutor, in pursuance of the Court’s direction, submitted a report which contains the list of the parliamentarians whose cases were returned by the Accountability Court after the amendments to the NAO, 1999.
According to the report, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, his son Hamza Sharif, ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, former president Ali Zardari, National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Zardari’s friend Enver Majeed and his son benefited from the recent amendments introduced by the PML-N-led government to the NAB law.
The cases of ex-MNA Farzana Raja, Bahria Town Chief Executive Officer Malik Riaz, Zafar Gondal, Nawab Aslam Raisani, Lashkar Raisani, Asfandyar Kakar, Arbab Alamgir, Asma Arbab Alamgir, and Sher Azam Wazir were also returned after the amendments.
The politicians who benefited during the regime of Imran Khan include former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani, ex-Finance Minister Shaukat Tareen, and ex-Speaker Punjab Assembly Sabtain Khan, ex-PM Shaukat Aziz, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, Saifullah Bangash, Liaquat Jatoi, and Javed Ashraf Qazi.
The report stated that besides politicians many bureaucrats and businessmen also took advantage of the National Accountability Bureau (Amendments) Act, 2022.
During the proceeding, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned whether, with the amendments to the NAB law, a new class has been created, which has benefited from the changes in the NAO.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the federation, replied this is not the case as the NAB report shows that only a few parliamentarians benefited, while the majority of the beneficiaries of the amendments are the bureaucrats, businessmen, and other people.
He argued that in the petition of Dr Mubashir Hassan, the statute (NRO) was struck down not on the ground of the Islamic provision, but due to the violation of Article 25 of the constitution. He also contended that in Nabi Ahmed case, the Court under Article 12 of the Constitution prohibited the parliament to make criminal law from increasing the punishment with retrospective effect. He then raised the question but will it also apply where the punishment and the rigour of the sentence are reduced?
He submitted that there is nothing on this issue in Pakistani jurisdiction but the Indian Court looked at this issue and said it will operate only one way, that the parliament can legislate criminal law to mollify the sentence. However, the chief justice said in the instant matter the definition of the offence has been changed.
Justice Mansoor inquired if the Parliament abolishes capital punishment then all the cases, wherein, the death sentence is awarded would not be carried out as there would be no law for capital punishment in the country and would it not violate the fundamental rights of the family members whose dear ones are murdered by the accused?
The counsel replied that it will apply to all the pending cases. He said European countries have abolished the death sentence through an Act of Parliament, adding earlier there was capital punishment for 220 offences.
The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023