ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the National Accountability Bureau for the records of those who benefited from the NAB ordinance issued during Imran Khan’s tenure.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of former Prime Minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan. Khan is challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 by the coalition government.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the federal government, while presenting his arguments, said in the court that the current amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999 are in continuation of the previous amendments made in the law.
He said that the court should not be limited to only those 386 cases and references which were sent back by the accountability court after the amendment of NAO 1999 by the present government. Yesterday, in response to the question of Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Makhdoom Ali Khan said that since five ordinances of NAB were issued during the three-and-a-half-year government, the court could also ask how many references were sent back and how? Through these ordinances, many accused were acquitted and those who benefited from it. Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal told the federal government’s lawyer, “Then you tell us what questions we should raise before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and we will note them down.”
The lawyer replied that the court should ask the NAB how many references were sent back by the accountability courts through the ordinance issued by the PTI government.
Similarly, the lawyer said that the court should also ask the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) how many people were acquitted under the PTI Ordinance and how many acquittals were returned by the trial courts.
At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that if the anti-graft body law is repealed, other laws can deal with the crime. The distinguished judge said that it is wrong to say that NAB can easily go home after being acquitted and cleared in the cases.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the impression that abolishing NAB will also reduce the grip of law is wrong.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the petitioner’s position is that through the amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, the standard of establishing the crime in NAB cases has been changed.
This is also an important question after conviction in NAB cases. How can new amendments be implemented with retrospective effect?
Justice Ahsan remarked that the new amendments in the NAB law cannot have retroactive effect, adding that it is very strange that there is such a large amnesty in the new amendments in the NAB law.
The distinguished judge remarked that I also know that there are other laws apart from the NAB laws, but in the end, if the accountability court acquits an accused, he will go home.
Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Thursday).
