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.
-
Paul Simon Goes Unfiltered On Elvis Presley’s Later Career And Film Choices -
'Gilmore Girls' Most Hated Character Is Getting Major Redemption Online -
Alix Earle Opens Up About Age-gap Dating After Tom Brady Speculation -
US And Iran Report Progress On Talks Ending War -
Lena Dunham Recalls Husband's First Impression Of Her -
King Charles Charity Ends Chelsea Flower Show -
'The Mandalorian And Grogu' Face Limits Of Force At Box Office -
Prince William Reveals Name Of Princess Charlotte's Favorite Football Team -
Prince William And Harry’s Uncle Gets Beloved Painting Back After Wedding -
CDC Expands Mandatory Ebola Screening To Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport -
Idris Elba Gets Candid About James Bond Casting Rumours -
Miley Cyrus Fiancé Maxx Morando Mocked Over Walk Of Fame Photoshoot -
Kyle Busch's Family Reveals NASCAR Racer's Cause Of Death -
China’s DeepSeek Restructures Pricing With A Permanent 75% Cut On V4-Pro AI Model -
Whereabouts Of Katie Price's Husband Lee Andrews Confirmed By His Father -
UK Dog Owners Could Regret It For Life If They Ignore These Heatwave Rules