Amendments case: Where money received by NAB goes, asks SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) asked Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government, on Thursday “where the money goes, which is received by the National Accountability Bureau [as a result of plea bargain or recovery from the corrupt].

A three-member apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, was hearing a petition of former premier Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

In reply, the counsel for the government also expressed his ignorance, saying that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had also repeatedly been asking this question from NAB.

During the course of hearing, the CJP observed that instead of making the NAB law efficient, the coalition government changed the law and granted across-the-board amnesty. “You have been telling earlier that NAB was used as a tool for political victimisation, and this was unfair,” the CJ told the counsel for the government.

The chief justice also remarked that NAB chairman had resigned recently, adding that he was a respectable police officer. “An example is already before us, showing that a person, who had returned the money to NAB, was kept behind bars even after that,” the CJP remarked, adding that it seemed the NAB law benefited many.

The chief justice further observed that the new NAB law did not clarify where the cases were referred to after the National Accountability Bureau lost jurisdiction due to the amendments. He remarked that no organisation had been set up so far which could deal with the cases, transferred by the NAB courts under the new amendments. “No custodian was available so far to deal with the references, returned by NAB after the amendments,” the CJP added. The chief Justice observed that the apex court was fortunate to have digital record of all NAB cases.

The counsel submitted that after the passage of NAB Act 2022, nobody had been acquitted.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel that apart from the NAB law, how other laws could be enacted.

Makhdom replied that anti-money laundering and the laws pertaining to taxation already existed. He submitted that NAB had not submitted a comprehensive report to the court so far, adding that in one report, NAB said that some 221 cases had been returned, while in the other report, it said some 334 references had been returned. In both reports, there was a contradiction of some 143 references, the counsel submitted. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for two weeks.