ISLAMABAD (WS News) – The Supreme Court on Friday restored the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Amendment Bill by accepting the appeals of the federal government and others.
A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, conducted hearing of the case and delivered verdict by a majority 5-0.
The verdict said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan couldn’t prove that the NAB Amendment Bill was unconstitutional.
The apex court had reserved the verdict on June 6 last.
JUNE 6 PROCEEDINGS
As the Supreme Court heard a set of intra-court appeals against the revocation of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law amendments in the last hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa remarked that apparently former prime minister Imran Khan’s government also wanted accountability of politicians alone.
CJP Isa headed the five-judge bench comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
Imran Khan, the incarcerated founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), joined the proceedings via video link from Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail. His request seeking personal appearance in the case remained pending with the apex court.
Appearing before the bench, lawyer Farooq H. Naik stated that he had prepared his written submissions. He said he was supporting the note of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
At this, CJP Isa questioned whether he was adopting the arguments of Makhdoom Ali Khan, the former attorney general for Pakistan. Naik responded that the arguments were his own.
KHAWAJA HARIS ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
In the last hearing, Khawaja Haris walked up to the rostrum and advanced his arguments as court’s assistant.
The chief justice asked Haris to tell the court which fundamental right had been affected by the NAB amendments.
He said he had explained the violation of fundamental rights in detail in the main case, adding that NAB amendments were in violation of Articles 9, 14, 25, and 24 of the constitution.
Haris said the NAB law was promulgated in 1999 by retired Gen Pervez Musharraf and before him, there was a similar Accountability Act during the regime of Nawaz Sharif.
At this point, the chief justice remarked that Pervez Musharraf had said that the purpose of the NAB was to remove corrupt politicians from the system, and the same was true of the request of the PTI founder.
The lawyer said the name of any politician was not written on that petition, on which the chief justice remarked that apparently the government of the PTI founder also only wanted the accountability of politicians alone.
The CJP further said the NAB law did not apply to the judiciary and certain institutions or personalities, but no amendment was made in this regard. “Parliament could have enacted the legislation.”
Khawaja Haris said all major political parties formed governments between 1999 and 2018, but no political party made such amendments to NAB rules.
At this, the CJP noted that other political groups were not party [in the case], as the amendments were challenged by the PTI. “We will ask them [about it].”
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Lawyer Haris argued that these NAB amendments were challenged with specific reference.
He said corruption affected the fundamental rights of the people, adding that embezzlement of public funds was a violation of rights. He further said the NAB laws applied to public office-holders who were not limited to politicians.
At this point, Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned, “How much authority does the public have in NAB’s actions?”
“As far as I understand, any citizen can file a complaint; it is up to NAB to determine whether corruption has occurred or not,” he added.
The chief justice asked Khawaja Haris if they only wanted political accountability, to which he answered that they did not challenge the NAB Ordinance 1999, but the NAB amendments of 2022.
“I will provide evidence in support of the admissibility of appeals; the central application was admissible in the Supreme Court,” Haris added.
At this juncture, Justice Athar Minallah inquired, “Which fundamental rights have been affected by the NAB amendments? Do you have complete confidence in NAB?”
Khawaja Haris responded that he would provide evidence that the minority opinion was incorrect.
Justice Minallah further asked, “Are you satisfied with the 90-day NAB remand? Are you supportive of NAB’s actions against corruption less than Rs500 million? Was the manner in which NAB made arrests correct?”
The lawyer said many amendments were reasonable, but they were not satisfied with the 90-day remand nor the arrests. “The amendments that were reasonable were not challenged,” he added.
LIMITED AUTHORITY
At this, Justice Athar Minallah asked why NAB’s authority was only limited to elected public office holders and why NAB wasn’t given authority over unelected public office holders.
The lawyer said that officials appointed by elected representatives were also public office holders, adding that decisions were made by elected representatives and the bureaucracy implemented them. “I don’t agree with the proposition that politicians are not corrupt.”
Justice Athar Minallah commented that the Supreme Court had already declared that whoever followed an unlawful order would themselves be responsible.
At this juncture, Justice Jamal Mandokhail emphasised the need for refusing unlawful orders.
The lawyer said the revelations about properties abroad were evidence that corruption was taking place.
The chief justice wondered why only politicians were brought under NAB’s jurisdiction.
During the course of proceedings, CJP Isa had a conversation with Imran Khan’s lawyer, asking, “If you were so honest, why did you grant amnesty? Britain is often cited as an example; tell me why amnesty is not granted there?”
Justice Isa further said that “if he had such a strict stance on accountability, why did he continue to give tax amnesty”?
Khawaja Haris responded that these were economic decisions which he did not want to discuss.
Justice Isa noted that the Election Commission had made separate statements of assets, and inquired why the details of income tax were not asked.
Addressing lawyer Haris, Justice Athar Minallah said “you have to tell from the constitution, how the rights were affected by the amendments.”
The chief justice questioned if giving the amnesty scheme was a violation of the NAB law or not.
Justice Minallah said, “Why do you want NAB to take action on every case? Why so much trust in NAB?”
Addressing the lawyer, Justice Isa said he had to show them what was unconstitutional in the amendments.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, amendments to the accountability laws were enacted by the then Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government.
These amendments brought about several changes to the NAB Ordinance (NAO) 1999, which included reducing the terms of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, restricting NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving amounts over Rs500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to the relevant authorities.
Following this, Imran Khan took the matter to the Supreme Court, challenging the amendments.
In September 2023, the apex court upheld former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition contesting the amendments to the country’s accountability laws.
Under the leadership of then chief justice Umar Ata Bandial and including Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Ijazul Ahsan, the court held over 50 hearings. With a majority 2-1 decision, the court reinstated corruption cases against public officials that had been closed due to the amendments.
The apex court directed the reopening of all corruption cases valued at less than Rs500 million that had been closed against political leaders from various parties and public office holders, deeming the amendments null and void.
This verdict held significant implications, as the nullification of the amendments meant that cases against several prominent political figures in the country would once again proceed in the accountability courts.
These cases include the Toshakhana reference involving PML-N President Nawaz Sharif, PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari, and former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, as well as the LNG reference against former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and the rental power reference against another former premier, Raja Parvez Ashraf.
Following the verdict, the federal government filed appeals against the ruling of the apex court.
