Supreme Court seeks NAB’s view on changes to NAO
The Supreme Court sought the NAB stance as to whether it supported the recent amendments, made by the incumbent government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday sought the stance of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as to whether it supported the recent amendments, made by the incumbent government 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 Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the government to the NAO-1999.
The court sought written reply from the anti-graft body on the request of Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government.
The court also directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit a comprehensive report, stating the volume of pending investigations in the cases as well as stating its worth.
Khawaja Haris, counsel for PTI Chairman Imran Khan, while continuing his arguments, submitted before the court that in the past the apex court had, on many occasions, issued directions for making legislations.
The counsel recalled that the apex court had also given time to the Parliament for making legislation on the appointment of Chief of the Army Staff (COAS).
“In some of the decisions, the apex court had also provided the Parliament, the relevant draft of the legislation as well,” the counsel submitted.
Kh Haris submitted that in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case, only those cases were re-opened which were closed under the Ordinance.
The counsel for the PTI chairman questioned as to how cases of the accused persons, who were convicted by the courts, could be closed down under the amendments made by the incumbent government to NAB law. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the learned counsel as to whether he had concluded his arguments, to which the counsel replied that still he needed two days to conclude.
Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until next Monday, Dec 11, 2022, directing the counsel to conclude his arguments.
-
Princess Beatrice, Eugenie Angry As King Charles Ends Their Financial Security -
Chase Infiniti Shares Her Working Experience With Leonardo DiCaprio -
Todd Bridges And Wife Bettijo B. Hirschi Separate After Three Years Of Marriage -
Germany Sends Troops To Greenland Amid Rising Arctic Tensions -
Jonathan Quick, The New York Rangers Face Mounting Pressure As Losses Pile Up -
Timothée Chalamet, Kylie Jenner Are Living Together In LA: Source -
Johnny Knoxville Net Worth: How The Actor Built A $50mn Fortune -
Meghan Markle Hidden Agenda Behind Returning To UK Exposed -
Raptors Vs Pacers: Toronto Shorthanded With Key Players Ruled Out Due To Injuries -
Iran Flight Radar Update: Airspace Closure Extended Amid Heightened Tensions -
Toronto Snow Day: What To Expect After Environment Canada's Snow Storm Warning -
Céline Dion Honours Late Husband René Angélil On 10th Anniversary Of His Death -
Astrologer Gives Their Verdict On ‘Rat’ Prince Harry’s New Year -
Meghan Markle Seeks 'special Treatment' Ahead Of Possible UK Return: Report -
EBay Launches First Climate Transition Plan, Targets 'zero Emissions' By 2045 -
Rihanna To Announce Music Comeback And UK Stadium Shows