ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has been asked to review its judgment against the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

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. The SC had directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to return all case records to the relevant courts within seven days.

The federal government will file an appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision to declare the amendments made to the NAO, 1999, null and void.

Accountability law amendments struck down: SC restores cases against public office-holders

According to the sources, the appeal would be filed in the next few days through the Law Ministry.

Abdul Jabbar, through senior advocate Farooq H Naek, on Friday, filed the review petition under Article 188 of the constitution and cited PTI chief Imran Khan, Federation through secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, and NAB chairman as respondents.

The petitioner was neither a party to the proceedings in Constitutional Petition No21 of 2022 before this apex court nor was issued any notice, at any stage of the said proceedings. He, however, in the petition stated was directly and materially affected by the impugned judgment. The petitioner stated he had been condemned unheard.

Naeq stated that the impugned judgment has declared part of the legislation as ultra vires without considering the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy as well as laid down principle for striking out legislation.

The impugned judgment has declared the provisions of the amending Acts of the Parliament on the policy consideration and contrary to the “will of the people” which the latter scribed through the subject amendments.

The impugned judgment, and for that matter the Constitutional Petition No21 of 2022 or the CMA5029 of 2022, did not pass the foremost test of any breach of “fundamental right”, before which this Court may hold any legislation to be ultra vires under Article 184(3).

The impugned judgment has curtailed the power of the Parliament to enact legislation, as it was the Parliament which enacted the NAO, 1999 and it is the Parliament alone to decide how and when to amend and/or alter the same.

The impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the amendments carried out in the NAO, 1999 by the Parliament did not take away any offence from the grip of law, but have streamlined the same through channeling to the relevant authorities.

The impugned judgment made the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2023 redundant, as the same provided the mechanism for all the cases which got affected by the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022.

Through the impugned judgment, with much respect, this honourable Court has assumed the position of being a “legislator” and “policymaker”, which is beyond the scope of powers of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Section 3 of the Second Amendment pertains to Section 5(o) of the NAB Ordinance which set the minimum pecuniary threshold of the NAB at Rs500 million.

The Parliament has set this limit in line with established principles of “intelligent differentia”, which in the instant case is the defining category of “mega corruption”. The impugned judgment on one hand agreed to a limit of Rs100 million but refused to accept the will of the people (the Parliament) to set the same at Rs500 million.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023