ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday heard Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments in the National Accountability (NAB) Ordinance by the government.
A three-member SC bench comprising of Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Ijaz remarked that the NAB amendments made the trial so difficult that corruption could not be proved.
PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris contended that if all NAB cases were sent to accountability courts, several suspects would be acquitted of all charges. The acquittal of corrupt persons had directly affected the fundamental rights of the people, he asserted.
Upon this, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, while addressing Imran Khan’s lawyer, said that he “finds” a new point in the case after every weekend.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired how fundamental human rights were being directly violated by the NAB amendments. He asked whether any person could file a petition against the passage of budget by the Assembly.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked if the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had given tax exemption to someone, would it be a violation of basic human rights.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that there was a benchmark of (acceptable) law, below which there was lawlessness, adding that they all agree that there should be a law of accountability.
He said the United Nations’ Anti-Corruption convention was very clear in this regard. He asked could Pakistan “transpose” UN conventions into its laws.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities was not part of the Constitution of Pakistan. He asked should the court start ordering Parliament to legislate on international conventions? In this way, the international convention itself would be called the Constitution of Pakistan, he added.
He said that courts could interfere with laws made by the executive when they conflict with the constitution.
Justice Ijaz said that the rights of the people would be affected due to corruption of public money.
Khawaja Haris said that many cases of FIA were transferred to NAB without any legal procedure.
Justice Ijaz said that laws should be in accordance with international standards. There was no country in the world that supported corruption, he added.
He said that he did not find any solid reason for the amendments in the old NAB’s act. It was the function of the court to determine the standard of law, he added.
Justice Ijaz remarked that even keeping an extra buffalo was an accountable act in Hazrat Umar’s (R.A) time. Corruption should be made such a painful crime that no one dares to commit it, he added.
He said that this could be proved that the NAB amendments were made maliciously and to benefit certain individuals.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that he did not agree that the court set the legal standard. The legal standard was determined by the constitution, not the court, he added.
He asked if there were no laws on corruption, then the court could ask to create them. He asked how could it be that the recent NAB amendments were null and void and the old law came into force automatically?
Imran Khan’s lawyer said that the corrupt accused were sitting happily at home after being acquitted with the current NAB amendments.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that here people were sitting in their houses even after sabotaging the constitution.
He asked was any proven corrupt criminal acquitted after NAB amendments?
Justice Ijaz remarked that corruption charges were now being waived off with the NAB amendments.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked when it was not proved after the trial whether a person was corrupt or not, how the fundamental rights were affected.
Justice Ijaz said that after the NAB amendments, the trial had been made so difficult that corruption could not be proved.
Subsequently, the court adjourned further hearing of the case till November 17.
