ISLAMABAD: Another petition has been filed against the Supreme Court judgment in the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
Basharat Mirza on Saturday filed the review petition under Article 188 of the constitution and cited PTI chief Imran Khan, federation through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, and NAB Chairman as respondents.
One Abdul Jabbar a day ago (Friday) also filed the petition challenging the apex court judgment delivered by a three-judge bench, headed by former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on September 15 by a majority of 2:1.
Amendments to NAO: SC urged to review its judgment
The Court declared the amendments null and void and ordered the reopening of all corruption cases worth less than Rs500 million that were previously closed against political leaders from various parties and public office holders. The Court had directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to return all case records to the relevant courts within seven days.
Basharat Mirza contended in the petition that he was neither a party to the proceedings in Constitutional Petition No.21 of 2022 before this apex court, nor was issued any notice, at any stage of the said proceedings. He; however, was directly and materially affected by the impugned judgment
Advocate Farooq H Naek, who filed the petition on behalf of Basharat, argued that the impugned judgment has declared part of the legislation as ultra vires without considering the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy as well as laid down principle for striking out legislation.
The impugned judgment has declared the provisions of the amending Acts of the Parliament on the policy consideration and contrary to the ‘will of the people’ which the later scribed through the subject amendments.
The impugned judgment, and for that matter the Constitutional Petition No.21 of 2022 or the CMA5029 of 2022, did not pass the foremost test of any breach of ‘fundamental right’, before which this Court may hold any legislation to be ultra vires under Article 184(3).
He stated that Section 3 of the Second Amendment pertains to Section 5(o) of the NAB Ordinance which set the minimum pecuniary threshold of the NAB at Rs.500 million. The Parliament has set this limit in line with established principles of “intelligent differentia”, which in the instant case is the defining category of ‘mega corruption’. The impugned judgment on one hand agreed to a limit of Rs100 million but refuses to accept the will of the people (the Parliament) to set the same at Rs500 million.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023