NAO 1999 amendments case: Contempt of Court Act was set aside but parliament was not blamed, says SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Wednesday sought details about the punishment awarded so far to the accused involved in corruption cases since the coalition government made amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

A three-member bench — headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — heard the petition filed by the PTI Chairman Imran Khan, challenging the amendments to the NAO 1999.

Advancing his arguments, Imran’s counsel Khwaja Haris submitted that corruption greatly affected the fundamental rights of the people. He said an office-holder was answerable to the public for his acts, as he was connected to the trust of public.

“If a public office-holder makes corruption and shatters the public trust, he ultimately affects the citizens’ fundamental rights,” Khwaja Haris contended. In this respect, he also gave the example of fake accounts case adjudicated by the apex court.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, however, observed that although in the fake accounts case, the fundamental rights of citizens were linked with the public trust, the NAB case was of different nature.

“I am not arguing about presumptions but talking about the Constitution,” Haris replied and said protecting the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution was the court’s responsibility.

Haris recalled that the Contempt of Court Act was introduced in 2012 and the Supreme Court had set it aside by holding that it was against the basic fundamental rights of citizens, as it waspromulgated by incompetent legislators.

“You want to say that the law made against the spirit of basic fundamental rights can be set aside on the basis of incompetency of parliamentarians,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the counsel.

At this, Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial clarified that the Contempt of Court Act was not set aside on account of incompetence of parliamentarians but the court had held that the law was partial.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel where it was mentioned that the Act had been set aside due to parliament’s incompetence. “Although, the court had set aside the legislation for being against the fundamental rights, it did not hold that the parliament was incompetent,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said, adding that the court never raised questions about eligibility or competency of the parliament. The PTI counsel, however, submitted that it was up to the court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens or not. The court adjourned the matter for Thursday (today).