SC asks if laws like NAB’s exist in any other South Asian country

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial said on Wednesday that the accountability process has been linked to basic fundamental rights in Indian law and asked the federal government counsel if he will cite the said law about the NAB law.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

During the hearing, the CJP said that, as per the Indian Constitution, the supremacy of law also falls in the category of basic fundamental rights; therefore, he asked the counsel for the federal government if he will cite the Indian law during his arguments.

Another member of the bench, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, inquired whether India had a NAB law and whether similar laws existed in any other South Asian country.

The judge further asked the learned counsel whether the NAB law was good and, if so, how much it had benefited the country.

“Whether any independent organisation has drafted a report about the benefits given by the NAB law,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah further asked.

Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that he will answer all the court’s queries after researching them.

The chief justice wondered if the severity of an offence could be reduced when an exemption is granted in a conviction.

Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that petitioner Imran Khan had also made amendments to the NAB law, adding that he was the author of one of the parts of the NAB amendments.

“Never it happened that a person, after making amendments himself, then challenged them in a court of law,” the counsel contended, adding that the petitioner did not participate either in the debate or voting process in parliament about the NAB amendments.

The counsel questioned how he could challenge the NAB amendments while approaching the court for invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which relates to the public interest.

If it was a matter of public importance, why did he not move a bill in parliament on the NAB amendments? Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted

He further submitted that the petitioner (Imran Khan) says that by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution, the accused will be acquitted. “But I will prove that nothing of that sort happened due to the NAB amendments,” the counsel claimed.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court will only examine where fundamental rights were affected, adding that one has to establish whether NAB amendments are against fundamental rights even if they look so bad.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing for Thursday.