Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated on Friday that the appeal from PTI Chairman Imran Khan opposing changes to the accountability laws should be heard by the entire court.
Imran’s petition was heard by a three-person Supreme Court (SC) bench that also included Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial. Imran’s petition was submitted in June of last year.
The National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022 was approved by the PDM administration after taking office in April of last year. The PTI strongly criticized this decision, calling it an attempt to make the anti-graft watchdog a “ineffective” organization.
The former prime minister contested the NAB ordinance’s changes in June, claiming they violated fundamental rights.
Justice Shah stated at the beginning of the hearing that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) law issue should have been heard by the entire court because the supreme court had frozen the law’s execution before it went into effect.
Justice Shah stated that “this case should also be heard by a full court after the introduction of the law.”
He pointed out that the situation had not yet been resolved and that it would have been different if it had. He urged the Chief Justice of Pakistan to convene a full court to hear the case contesting the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law revisions.
CJP Bandial commented that the parties should make their closing arguments in the case at the subsequent hearing. The case has been open since 2022. No one has contested the 2023 revisions to the NAB law, he noted.
Each case has its unique facts and merits, according to Justice Ahsan. He explained, “The opinion issued in one case is only for that case.
When there is a difference of opinion, CJP Bandial said, the decision is made by the majority. He added that the petitioner had made their reasons throughout 22 hearings, whilst the federal government had done the same during 19 hearings. He remarked, “This case wasn’t that long.
Justice Shah also mentioned throughout the hearing that he had been enquiring about which fundamental rights were impacted ever since day one. “It has not been disclosed which fundamental rights have been affected in 47 hearings,” he claimed.
The federal government’s attorney Makhdoom Ali Khan was then questioned by CJP Bandial about why he was reluctant to make “on merit” arguments. The attorney retorted that he was not hesitating to do so but that it was his duty to bring up the plea’s inadmissibility.
CJP Bandial questioned the attorney, “Why are you trying to leave the hearing?” The counsel said that the court had the power to accept or reject his argument.
Additionally, Yasir Aman, the PTI chief’s assistant, represented him at the hearing today since Khawaja Haris, the PTI chief’s attorney, was absent. The latter informed the court that their side had submitted comprehensive reply.
The court would decide the case following daily sessions, according to CJP Bandial. Justice Shah also requested arguments regarding whether the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) law would allow the current bench to hear the matter.
CJP Bandial stated, “My retirement is near,” and added that it would be embarrassing for him if the matter was not settled. It is a significant case that has been heard for a while. The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) law was not a topic of discussion in court.
Changing the NAB law
According to the NAB (Second Amendment) Bill 2021, after the chairman’s term ends, the deputy chairman of the NAB, who will be chosen by the federal government, would take over as the bureau’s interim chairman.
The NAB Chairman’s and the Bureau’s Prosecutor General’s four-year terms have been shortened to three years under the measure. NAB won’t be able to take action on issues involving state, local, or federal taxes once the law has been approved. Additionally, the regulatory organizations operating in the nation are no longer under the control of NAB.
According to this ordinance, “all pending inquiries, investigations, trials, or proceedings .
The judges of the accountability courts will henceforth serve terms of three years. Furthermore, it will compel courts to reach a decision on a case within a year. According to the proposed law, NAB is required to make sure that there is evidence against an accused person available before the accused person is taken into custody.
One of the important revisions states that the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999’s beginning shall be considered the date the legislation “shall be deemed to have taken effect.”
