SC questions if PTI breached public trust by resigning

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned if the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf had breached the public trust by leaving parliament.

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 PTI petition challenging the amendments made by the coalition government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

While continuing his arguments, Khwaja Haris, counsel for the PTI, stated that public representatives had great responsibilities and must maintain the trust placed in them by the public.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the learned counsel why the petitioner (Imran Khan) left parliament and approached the court to challenge the NAB law amendments. “The public had also trusted him to send him to parliament and he could have raised objections on the floor of the house to the amendments, but he left parliament,” Justice Shah told Haris.

Khwaja Haris, however, replied that it was a political question and he could not say this but added that the issue was only taken up for one day in the Upper House of Parliament (Senate) where the PTI had its representation.

“But how could he leave parliament without taking the consent of people of his constituency who had trusted him in sending to parliament?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the learned counsel, adding that he had a better opportunity to oppose the amendments on the floor of the house instead of approaching the court.

Khwaja Haris submitted that the law pertaining to holding accountable public office bearers had existed since 1949, adding that none of the public office holders had been given immunity in cases related to corruption. He said in the past, the court had declared corruption a cancer for the country, but the present amendments, instead of strengthening the law, had diluted it.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked what the court could do if parliament abolished the NAB law. The judge further questioned whether the apex court had given any verdict on restoring a law that was abolished earlier.

Khwaja Haris replied that the Supreme Court had passed an order restoring a law repealed in 1990. The counsel contended that a public office holder had a greater responsibility to maintain the sacred trust of public, adding that the law was meant for accountability relating to trust.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that parliament had to follow the Constitution and Shariah, adding the Constitution has clearly mentioned that Islamic principles have to be followed in letter and spirit besides ensuring basic and fundamental rights of citizens.

Referring to the issue of plea bargain, Khwaja Haris submitted that some important changes had been made in the recent amendments to the NAO 1999. Khwaja Haris submitted that the amendments had facilitated the accused in respect of depositing the money, adding that earlier one had to be proceeded against for not depositing the plea bargain installment, but under the new amendment, the plea bargain had been totally abolished and the accused could get the benefit of it.

“Not only are you free but you can also claim the money you have paid through plea bargain,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen remarked, adding that even if the case relates to an amount of less than Rs500 million, it will be no more.

Khwaja Haris submitted that after acquittal from the case, an accused under the new amendments could claim the money he had paid, adding that the accused could justify that he had been forced to deposit the money through plea bargain.

At this, Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that the anti-graft body had collected billions of rupees through plea bargain and if one could reclaim the deposited amount, the liability would be upon the state to pay this huge amount.

Khwaja Haris also stated that previously, the NAB was required to deposit the amount collected through recoveries with the relevant authorities within one month, but under the new amendments, the NAB could keep the amount so that it could be repaid to the accused persons.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the learned man if it was right to force an accused to deposit the money. Khwaja Haris replied that a plea bargain was made with the approval of an accountability court, adding that accused could inform the court if he was forced to do so. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for Thursday (today) at 12:30pm.