By Ali Imran
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Friday observed that elections themselves were a form of accountability as he sought further arguments on a petition filed by PTI Chief Imran Khan challenging the recent amendments to accountability laws.
The Nati¬onal Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022, which was passed by the National Assembly and Senate, earlier this week, has been criticised by the opposition PTI as an attempt by a government facing serious graft charges to defang NAB.
A three-member bench comprising the top judge, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the case.
The CJP regarded described polls as a measure of “political accountability” in which voters hold their representatives answerable, while Justice Ahsan said that the court has to see if NAB laws violate the fundamental rights of the people.
At the outset of the hearing Friday, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said that Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan had been nominated as the federal government’s counsel in the case after which the court granted him permission to present his arguments.
Taking the stand, Makhdoom said neither the bar councils nor civil society had raised any objections to the NAB amendments.
Here, Imran’s lawyer Khawaja Haris pointed out that the Islamabad Bar Council had challenged the law in the high court.
Makhdoom said that efforts were being made to turn the Supreme Court into the “third chamber” of parliament. “Several NAB cases have been fought [over the years]. The honourable judges know what happens in the assets-beyond-means cases.
“Should we just believe that before 1999 the country was mired in corruption and there was no progress,” he asked, arguing that the economy today is in a difficult situation. “Nowadays, investors have stopped investing [money].”
The lawyer said that the president, instead of approving the NAB law, had sent a letter to PM Shehbaz Sharif, which included suggestions regarding the amendments. “We have made the letter part of the case too,” he stated.
Makhdoom said that Imran should be asked why he was opposing the amendment now when he himself was in favour of them earlier. “If this is a political strategy, he should use another forum instead of the court,” he contended.
To this, Justice Ahsan said that the court is not seeing who introduced the law, but whether it violates fundamental rights.
“Also tell us how NAB contributed to the economy,” Justice Shah asked.
The chief justice also remarked here that the economy was at the brink of collapse today. “The court also has to look at the public interest,” he said.
During the hearing, Justice Bandial said that some new amendments had been made to the NAB law. According to the new bill, all corruption cases involving an amount under Rs500 million would not come in its purview.
Referring to it in the hearing Friday, Justice Ahsan asked if the bill would be included in the record of the court’s proceedings. “The clause on keeping corruption amounting to less than Rs500 million outside the jurisdiction of NAB was included in the first amendment,” he observed.
PTI’s lawyer replied that he had submitted an additional request in that regard and highlighted that the clause could have “grave consequences”.
Here, Justice Shah said that to challenge the bill, the petition would have to be amended.
Meanwhile, Makhdoom contended that the new law cannot be challenged until it becomes “an Act of the parliament”.
He argued that if the president does not sign the new amendment, the matter will go to a joint session. “It is too early to say whether the recent amendment to the NAB law will be approved in the joint session,” the lawyer added.
Subsequently, the chief justice remarked that the case is one in which the court will not act in haste. He also said that elections themselves were a form of accountability, adding that during the polls, the people held their leaders answerable.
Imran’s lawyer said that even the present amendments were a violation of the constitutional mandate, arguing that laws opposing the basic structure of the Constitution could be challenged.
He added that they — the government — had rendered the law ineffective. Here, Justice Shah asked: “Is it our job to fill the empty spaces?”
