NAO case: No fact cited in Imran’s petition, federation’s counsel tells SC

ISLAMABAD: The Federation’s counsel contended that no fact has been pleaded in the petition of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, while appeals against the amendments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law are pending before the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Wednesday heard former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.

Justice Mansoor questioned is there NAB law or general or generic law in other countries, particularly in India specifically for the elimination of corruption? Is there any report that harbours the impression that this is an exceptional law (NAB law)? Is there any report by anyone or an agency on the trajectory and performance of the NAB that this body has been good for the country, he asked.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the federation, said how the petitioner has locus standi to invoke Article 184(3), while he was the author of the law (amendments).

The counsel said when the petitioner has not participated in the vote against the bill then how he could challenge it before the court. Why he had not opposed the bill in the parliament? The petitioner has not pointed out how these acts are exfacie discriminatory.

The CMA filed by the petitioner contains 16 challenges, which include that the law is made with retrospective effect, change of presumptions, reference being sent to the NAB chairman, standard of proof, displacement of presumption, shifting the burden on the prosecution to help the accused to walk scot-free, and the change of evidence and reduction of punishment.

The chief justice noted that the rule of law and access to justice are also fundamental rights. He stated that in two or three recent judgments the Supreme Court maintained petitions under Article 184(3) on violations of other provisions of the constitution.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said there are judgments of this court that exfacie violation with respect to Article 17 of the Constitution, and not of Article 25. The violation must be direct and causal. In Benazir Bhutto, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Tahirul Qadri case, the apex court has held that the petitioner must act on bona fide and the burden is on the petitioner. He argued that judicial restraint is a must for the continuation of law, and also applies to the trichotomy of power.

The chief justice noted that there has been an expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction since 2010. Makhdoom said the SC jurisprudence is always clear since 1990 that a single judge is bound to follow the judgment of the Division Bench, and the judgment of the Division Bench is bound by the judgment of a similar number of judges.

Justice Bandial also observed that in 1989, an amnesty scheme was announced, which was challenged before the High Court on the ground that the cases of the tax evaders and corruption be done away with through Presidential pardon. The High Court set aside the scheme. However, the decision of the high court was turned down by the Supreme Court in 1992. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023