Islamabad
A three-member bench of Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing over Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) petition seeking to declare amendments to NAB law unconstitutional on Tuesday.
Court remarked that the NAB law is not only related to public office holders, the law made for a specific person can be annulled by the court. It is not against the fundamental rights; they have to be kept separate.
In the past, the court invalidated the legislation for certain people. The person who commits corruption should be punished or any necessary decision made by him should be reversed. We realize that these cases affect the common man coming to the court.
During the hearing, PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that most of the cases in NAB are about abuse of power and assets in excess of income. If the parliament does not take advantage, the case will not be made, if the parliament declares tomorrow that murder is not a crime, then should it be allowed to happen?
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on this occasion raised the point that whether the legislators should not be allowed to exercise their privilege. If the Parliament abolishes the death penalty, can the court restore it?
On which Khawaja Haris took a stand that the issue of abolishing the death penalty is different, where there is a matter of corruption and national treasury, there is a question of fundamental rights, the rich man transfers the wealth wherever he wants, if a patwari takes the money of the individual action is taken against him, shouldn’t action be taken against the big man?
Parliament is also subordinate to the constitution, NAB amendments are in conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court and not in accordance with them.
Addressing PTI Vice-Chairman Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi present in the court room, the Chief Justice said where were you when the NAB amendments were being made? I think, your lawyer has raised very good points, we will issue notices to the parties on these points, you have prepared for the next hearing, why should this matter not be debated in the parliament, how many PTI members are there in the parliament? Think for the sake of the country, the nation, the constitution, we realize that because of these cases, the common man who comes to the court is affected, what has been resolved in the parliament, there are some conditions, your participation is also included in the conditions.
Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that he took the stand in front of the court that the NAB amendments were discussed in the parliamentary committee for several hours, I was a member of the committee when the NAB law was being made, the NAB law was discussed in detail in the committee.
That the legislative powers of the Parliament cannot be reviewed by the courts? Can the law favoring certain persons not be challenged? The application of the amendments since 1985 means that all the pending cases have been dismissed with impunity.
It will be a crime to create assets from the stolen money, he said while addressing Shah Mehmood Qureshi that the people should raise this matter in the Parliament as elected representatives, if they return after receiving the benefit, legal proceedings will start.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked on one occasion that keep in mind that the amendments were made by the Parliament, the decision makers were afraid of taking decisions in the national interest because NAB would not catch them, the NAB law has also pushed us back, this time.
Khawaja Haris took a position on this occasion that the court should also take into account the United Nations Anti-Corruption Convention has been made, accountability courts can no longer accept information from abroad as evidence, with the new amendments, all cases of fake accounts will end. But NAB also requested to make the amendments to benefit the accused subject to the court decision.
Opposing the plea of PTI, the Additional Attorney General took a stand that the amendments have been challenged in the Islamabad High Court, Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked what is the problem of the government if the relief is subject to a court decision?
But the Additional Attorney General took the stand that it would be appropriate to let the High Court decide first. Later, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Attorney General and adjourned the hearing of the matter to 11 o’clock on Friday, July 29.
