LHC rejects petitions challenging NAB Ordinance

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday ruled that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 was a valid law as it was given constitutional cover under the 18th Constitutional Amendment.

A full bench led by Justice Shahid Waheed issued this short order after rejecting petitions challenging the NAB ordinance. Justice Atir Mahmood and Justice Shahid Jamil Khan were the other members of the bench. The Lawyers Foundation for Justice through senior lawyer AK Dogar and others had filed the petitions.

In case the NAO was declared a dead law, the conviction to Sharif family under the same law would have been overturned too. In their petitions, the petitioners had stated that the impugned ordinance had been promulgated by military dictator Musharraf under PCO No 1 of 1999 as well as Order No 9 of 1999. They said the order No 9 was promulgated only to amend PCO No.1 of 1999 by inserting Section 5A (1) into it to the effect that limitation of 120 days prescribed under Article 89 of the Constitution to any ordinance by the president would not be applicable to the laws made under PCO No 1 of 1999.

However, the petitioners said under Article 270-AA of the Constitution through 18th Amendment, the PCO No 1 of 1999 was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. They said once the PCO No 1 was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the amendments to it made under Order No 9 of 1999 would also stand lapsed, therefore, the limitation period of 120 days would be applicable to the NAB ordinance.

Additional Prosecutor General of NAB Jahanzeb Bharwana argued that the NAO had been given the status of “Act” through Legal Framework Order 2002 by insertion of Article 270-AA in the Constitution. Subsequently, he said, the ordinance was approved as an act of parliament through 17th Amendment Act 2003. He said, later, under the 18th amendment of 2010 certain president’s orders mentioned in Article 270-AA were declared as having been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect. And in Sub-Article 2 of the Article 270-AA, all other laws including president’s orders, acts, ordinances, chief executive’s orders, regulations, enactments, notifications made between Oct 12, 1999 and Oct 31 2003, which were still in force were allowed to continue to be in force until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority.

Bharwana argued that the limitation of 120 days under Article 89 of the Constitution was not applicable to the laws made under PCO No 1 of 1999. Advocate Dogar argued that the impugned ordinance was a creation under Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) promulgated by military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. He said the PCO had been amended three times, however, the 18th Amendment declared it null and void. The lawyer pointed out that the 18th Amendment Act 2010 had declared all acts and laws made by the dictator as without lawful authority. He said the Supreme Court also in its 2009 judgment declared the PCO of Musharraf void ab initio meaning thereby the NAO stood repealed since 2000.