The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to hear a petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan against amendments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law on daily basis. A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.
At the outset of the hearing, the chief justice inquired Haris, PTI’s lawyer, that how much time will he need to complete the arguments. Responding to the query, the lawyer said he will complete the arguments in two days. Besides several corruption cases returning to NAB, pending NAB inquiries have al
The lawyer said that the federal government had assured the court it would submit a response at this hearing. “The court hasn’t received the Centre’s response yet, while the attorney general isn’t present [at the hearing] as well,” CJ Bandial said. Meanwhile, Haris maintained that NAB’s stance is not on the record. “We should know if NAB will maintain a different stance,” he said. At this, CJ Bandial remarked that the NAB officials had said that they will follow the attorney general’s stance. However, Justice Hassan said that NAB gave a verbal statement and there is nothing in writing.
“We only have to see the basic rights and violation of the Constitution,” the CJ interjected. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till today (October 5). The counsel stated in the plea that, since Sept 1, 2022, a large number of references pending with the accountability courts throughout Pakistan have been returned to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in the light of the amendments which have been impugned in the titled petition, the accountability courts no longer have jurisdiction to try these cases.
He submitted that the references thus returned pertain to offences falling inter alia under Sections 9(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi),(ix),(x),(xii), of the NAO, 1999, and have been so returned by invoking provisions of inter alia sections 1(2), 2, 4(a)-(g), 5(o) and 9(a)(vi) of NAO. 1999. “Additionally, there are a large number of references (more than 90 percent of pending references, if not all) which are also hit by the impugned amendments, but have not yet been disposed of returned by the accountability courts,” the counsel submitted He further informed the court that there are numerous (if not all) pending enquiries and investigations which have been or are in the process of being similarly wound up in the light of the provisions introduced to the NAO by the impugned amendments.
