Parliament has authority to change Constitution: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Friday questioned as to how the recent amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 were inconsistent with the Constitution.

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

The court issued a notice to the federal government on the PTI counsel’s plea requesting that the implementation of the legislation should be linked to the final decision of the court in the instant petition.

During the course of hearing, Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial asked PTI lawyer Khwaja Haris to place his formulations in detail stating as to how the amendments conflicted with the Constitution. “And also tell us about the amendments that could affect the NAB law as well as cases pending before the accountability courts,” the CJP asked.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that an appeal against the amendments to the NAB law was also pending before the Islamabad High Court. “Would it not be appropriate if the high court should first decide it,” he asked, adding that the high court could not move beyond the fundamental rights in the petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution. “So let the wisdom of the high court come first,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah added.

Khwaja Haris, however, submitted that the NAB amendments would be applicable not to one high court but the whole country, adding that the amendments had made public office holders above the accountability process. “Without accountability neither governance nor democracy can flourish,” he submitted.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel if the government had abolished the NAB, then what would have been the basis of his petition. Khwaja Haris replied that Islam and the Constitution stressed that one must be made accountable for wrongdoings, adding that independence of the judiciary and accountability of public office holders were two major parts of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that making illegal acts by favouring someone fell into the domain of corruption. “Basically, misuse of powers and causing loss to the national kitty is corruption,” the CJP remarked, adding that if a dam was going to be built somewhere and a lobby opposed it, it would be against national interests. He said that Justice (retd) Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel used to say that Dera Isamel Khan needed a dam.

“In your petition you have submitted that the amendments are against parliamentary democracy, so tell us which amendments are against the Constitution,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Khwaja Haris. While Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the counsel to tell them if any amendments meant to give relief to any accused. Khwaja Haris replied that the amendments which were inconsistent with the Constitution should be struck down, adding amendments against the basic structure of the Constitution were not possible.

At this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah replied that the Constitution has no basic structure, adding that parliament had the authority to change the Constitution. Khwaja Haris submitted that the court had accepted the basic structure of the Constitution in the constitutional amendments case. He contended that the facility of mutual legal assistance had been abolished in the NAB law through the recent amendments.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that parliament was the supreme law-making body and the court could only examine a matter when it was inconsistent with the Constitution. The PTI counsel pleaded the court to halt the implementation of the new NAB law until the decision of the petition. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah replied that NAB courts were functioning and how could they lock them. Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that it was their obligation to work in accordance with the law and Constitution.

Earlier, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman submitted before the court that he would assist the court in the matter, adding that the government also wanted to hire a senior counsel for the case. The court adjourned the case until Friday.