- Emphasizes providing justice is a fundamental function of the state
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Friday observed that evidence collected through international legal help were not acceptable after the NAB amendments which potentially raised questions about who would benefit from these changes.
CJP Umar Ata Bandial made the observation during hearing a plea filed by the PTI chairman against the amendments introduced to NAB Law by the coalition government of PDM. A three-member bench led by CJP Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is hearing the petition.
As the proceedings began and Khawaja Haris, the counsel for the PTI chief started arguments, the CJ intervened and asked Haris that he wanted to ask Makhdom Ali Khan a question.
The CJP said it was observed yesterday that the status of evidence obtained through mutual legal cooperation had been eliminated under the [NAB amendments] and that the bureau would be paying extra for seeking legal services.
“You earlier said that in addition to mutual legal cooperation, a report pertaining to foreign properties has been received but it’s not acceptable under the law,” the CJP noted.
The chief justice opined that Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) record obtained from abroad could not be submitted as acceptable evidence in the court of law. “Does the constitution of Pakistan list the rights of an applicant.”
A report was also submitted during the hearing, detailing the return of references following the NAB amendments. Notably, the Park Lane reference against former President Asif Zardari and former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi were among those returned by the accountability courts.
The report also indicated that cases involving individuals such as Khurshid Anwar Jamali, Manzoor Qadir Kaka, Anwar Majeed, Hussain Lawai, and Abdul Ghani Majeed of the Omni Group had been transferred out of NAB’s jurisdiction.
On the occasion, Justice Ijazul Hassan asked if NAB had submitted an edited report. To which the NAB prosecutor confirmed the submission of the report.
Chief Justice Bandial questioned whether the rights of complainants were enshrined in Pakistan’s Constitution. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan responded that the Constitution primarily focused on the rights of the accused and fair trial, rather than the rights of complainants.
Justice Ejazul Hassan added that Swiss cases against individuals like Asif Zardari were overdue and not necessarily due to a lack of evidence. The proceedings also shed light on the challenges in seeking assistance from Swiss authorities.
Furthermore, it was discussed that information obtained by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) from abroad could not be presented as admissible evidence in court. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan emphasized that it was NAB’s responsibility to prove the evidence obtained from abroad.
In his concluding remarks, Chief Justice Bandial underscored the importance of delivering justice, particularly in criminal cases, where conviction rates were below 70%. He emphasized that providing justice was a fundamental function of the state.
Chairman PTI’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, explained the process of obtaining evidence from abroad through mutual legal cooperation, highlighting the significance of the verification process.
He highlighted that the amendments had abolished the status of evidence obtained under mutual legal cooperation, potentially making the process more costly for NAB.
The hearing shed light on the complexities surrounding NAB amendments and their potential impact on legal proceedings. The debate continues as the Supreme Court of Pakistan assesses the implications of these changes in the NAB law.
This ongoing legal debate raises significant questions about the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice in Pakistan’s legal system.
