ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Tuesday appealed to the Supreme Court to set aside its Sept 15 judgment, striking down the amendments made by the PDM government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
The appeal was filed under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 against the apex court order in the petition filed by former prime minister Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made to the NAB law.
The government contended that by setting aside the law passed by parliament making amendments to the NAB law, the apex court had crossed its powers.
It was further contended that parliament was competent to legislate adding that it had enacted a law making amendments to the NAB law.
“If a legislation is repugnant to the fundamental rights of citizens, then the court can set it aside,” it contended but added that the amendments made to the NAB law did not affect the fundamental rights of citizens.
A three-member bench of the apex court — headed by former Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — on September 15 by a majority 2-1 had restored corruption cases against the public office-holders after striking down some of the amendments made by the PDM government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, declaring it against the rights pertaining to the public interest enshrined in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, an appeal of similar nature was filed with the Supreme Court by one Zubair Siddiqui through his lawyer. The appellant requested that the Sept 15 judgment be set aside.
Zubair Siddiqui filed the appeal under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 against the apex court order in the petition filed by former prime minister Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made to the NAB law.
He further questioned as to whether the impugned judgment had not curtailed the power of parliament to enact legislation, as it was the parliament which enacted the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and it’s the parliament alone to decide how and when to amend and/or alter the same.
The petitioner submitted that he was not a party to the proceedings in Constitutional Petition No.21 of 2022 before this court adding that he was not issued any notice at any stage of the said proceedings. However, he was directly and materially affected by the impugned judgment.
“This review petition is, therefore, being filed on the basis of the law declared by this Hon’ble Court in the judgment reported as H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Limited reported in PLD 1969 SC 65”, the petitioner submitted.
He submitted that the NAB filed Reference No19 of 2016 was pending with the Accountability Court No IV at Karachi and cited him as an accused.
He informed the court that during the pendency of the NAB reference, the parliament enacted the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, thereby amending various provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
He contended that the Sindh High Court, relying on the amended provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, passed the order dated 04-09-2023 whereby the said reference was returned to the NAB chairman to pass appropriate orders of referring the matter to the relevant forum in accordance with the law.
The petitioner claimed that he had been condemned unheard adding that he was not a party before this court in constitutional petition No21 of 2022 and CMA 5029 of 2022.
He further informed the court that no notice was issued to him by the apex court adding that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution was to be exercised sparingly. He prayed the apex court to accept his appeal and recall and set aside the impugned judgment dated September 15, 2023.
