Other options available: Declaring NAB law amendments void not necessary, says CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umer Ata Bandial Wednesday observed that they were looking forward to an improvement in the NAB law, adding that more options were available with the court other than declaring the NAB amendments as null and void.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard a petition filed by former prime minister and Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the coalition government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. During the course of hearing, the CJP observed that it was not necessary to declare the amendments made to NAO 1999 as void, but other options were also available with the court.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a member of the bench, observed that if the NAB amendments were found to be contrary to the fundamental rights, then the court would explore other options as well. Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government, while continuing his arguments, submitted that no law repugnant to the fundamental rights could prevail.

The chief justice observed that there was a political issue also in the case, adding that the courts were not the place for taking political decisions. “There must be a balance between individual and public interest, but the question here was as to how the court could defend and protect the Constitution,” the CJP said, adding the Constitution means the people of Pakistan. “There is also a question as to what extent the court could go while deciding the matter,” the CJP further asked, adding that the public office holders were also accountable. If the standard of accountability had been lowered through the amendments, then how the court could maintain it, he raised a question.

The CJP observed that since the creation of Pakistan, anti-corruption laws had been enacted and under these laws, the public office holders were subjected to accountability.

“We are not required to examine the political or social problems as trust is the only centre of all matters; therefore, doctrine of trust is very much necessary for the public office,” the chief justice remarked.

The CJP further said that judges were also accountable and they could not go near to [illegal] money as well, adding that the apex court got some funds in a matter which was deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan. “And still we are waiting that these funds should be utilised,” the CJP remarked, adding that had the apex court not put the details of the funds on the website of SBP, criticism could have been unleashed. Counsel for the Federation submitted that it’s true that trust is an important element but the court should also trust the parliament and politicians. “The court has trust in parliament but the public has trust in the judiciary,” the CJP replied, adding that there are basic requirements which the court has to abide by.

Makhdom Ali Khan, while replying to a question, said that over 159 members of parliament voted in favour of the NAB amendments, adding that the parliament passed the NAB amendments law with majority.

“But it is strange that an Act of the Parliament has been challenged by a person who himself is a Member of the Parliament,” Makhdom contended.

He submitted that it’s also strange that by challenging the NAB amendments, Imran Khan had also expressed many times reservations over the NAB law.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel whether there was any precedent available whereby a parliamentarian had challenged the legislation.

“There is no case in my knowledge wherein a parliamentarian had challenged any law,” Makhdom replied, adding that the petitioner (Imran Khan) was not only a Member of Parliament but also remained a prime minister of the country.

The counsel claimed that he would also explain in his arguments the mala fide intention and personal interest of the petitioner in challenging the NAB amendments. “On several occasions, former law minister, former finance minister and former information minister had expressed their reservations over the NAB law,” the counsel contended, adding that if the court asked, he could provide details of statements of central leaders of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The counsel submitted that whether the Act of Parliament was unconstitutional, it was for the petitioner to establish it and the burden was on him as well. He contended that the judiciary should search every justification for maintaining the law, adding that if there was any lacuna, then it could be corrected through parliament.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for Wednesday (today).