ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial on Friday said it would be an embarrassment to him if he did not decide before his retirement on a petition challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
However, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah insisted on the formation of a full court for the immediate hearing.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of former Prime Minister and Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan challenging the amendments. The NAO was created in 1999 by the former coalition government.
As the hearing of the case began, Justice Mansoor said he had something to say and referred to the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
Referring to the act, the judge insisted on constituting a full court to hear the NAB amendment case under the challenge. Must listen. A five member larger bench or full court.
Justice Mansoor reminded that earlier he had given his note during the hearing of the case related to the trial of the accused in the military courts, emphasizing the formation of a full court, now he will again emphasize the formation of a full court.
Justice Shah remarked that if a full court is not constituted to hear the matter, I believe the court should first decide the matter pending under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2013 and then proceed. .
The distinguished judge further said that in the current situation, the court cannot hear the urgent application challenging the NAB amendment case. Justice Shah added that the Supreme Court has not yet decided the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, adding that if the Act had been decided earlier, the matter would have been different.
However, Chief Justice Bandyal observed that the amendments of NAB are pending since 2022 under challenge, he added that the petitioner’s lawyer Khawaja Haris had argued before the court in more than 22 hearings, while the then Federal Govt. The lawyer was Makhdoom Ali Khan. Presented his arguments in about 19 hearings
“This case was not as long as we have made it out to be,” the chief justice remarked and asked both sides to prepare their final arguments on the next date of hearing.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that every case has its own facts and merits, adding that the opinion given in one case was only for that case.
The Chief Justice said that from August 28, the court will hear the urgent matter on a daily basis.
During the hearing, Khawaja Haris’ partner informed the court that the lawyer was very busy with the cases pending in the trial courts. However, he said that in compliance with the court’s final order, he has submitted his reply.
Meanwhile, Justice Mansoor asked former government counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan for his opinion on whether the bench can continue hearing the instant matter or the full court should hear it.
Makhdoom also supported the proposal for a full court, to which the chief justice said that Fazil Vakil had made extensive arguments before the court and was now trying to prolong the case. The Chief Justice told Makhdoom Ali Khan that I do not understand why you are leaving the hearing.
The Chief Justice remarked that let’s not create problems but find some solutions.
However, Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that he did not want to delay the case but added that it was his responsibility to raise points regarding the inadmissibility of the application.
“However, bear in mind that a difference of opinion is a difference of opinion, that there may be a difference of opinion, but only the majority decides,” the chief justice told Ali Khan.
Similarly, the Chief Justice said that the court can also give its opinion on the question of retention.
Justice Mansoor said that from the first day of the case, he repeatedly asked the petitioner’s counsel as to which fundamental rights of the petitioner were violated by the amendments. The judge, however, added that during the 47 hearings conducted so far in the instant case, their queries have not been answered yet.
Meanwhile, the chief justice said without naming himself that one of them is retiring next month, but said he wants to dispose of all pending cases, adding that if he disposes of the case before him. If not, it will be a source of shame for them. Retirement
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till August 28, directing the lawyers of the parties to be ready for final arguments.
