Pakistan Supreme Court Reserves Verdict in NAB (Amendment) Act Case

Tue Sep 05 2023
icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp

ISLAMABAD: The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Umar Ata Bandial, announced on Tuesday that the three-member Supreme Court bench hearing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition against the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022, would soon deliver a “short and sweet” verdict.

The three-member bench, led by CJP Bandial and comprising Justice Mansoor and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, concluded the hearing and reserved judgment on Imran Khan’s petition. The date for the verdict’s announcement will be set later.

The additional attorney general, representing AGP Mansoor Usman Awan, apologized to the court for the AGP’s absence, attributing it to an important foreign visit.

During the hearing, PTI’s legal counsel, Khawaja Haris, presented his final arguments to the bench. CJP Bandial commented on the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) reasons for withdrawing references following legislative amendments to the law, noting that these reasons were submitted until May.

Hearing of NAB (Amendment) Act Case in Supreme Court

CJP Bandial remarked on the perceived bias in the law and questioned who would address the cases returned by NAB that predated the amendments.

In response, Imran Khan’s counsel Khawaja Haris argued that many pending cases had been returned after the amendments. The CJP raised concerns about the lack of clear definitions for crimes related to corruption in state assets, smuggling, or illegal capital transfers in the law.

Justice Mansoor questioned the wisdom of the state, questioning the reduction of punishment in parliament’s amendments. He also inquired whether crimes could be eradicated through retroactive application of NAB amendments.

Justice Ahsan added that there are limits to what parliament can do and questioned whether parliament could eliminate crime by retroactive legislation.

CJP Bandial emphasized the need for clarity in the NAB law and pondered the survival of vague laws. The discussion then shifted to the authority of the Supreme Court to send laws back to Parliament and the practical implications of such actions.

icon-facebook icon-twitter icon-whatsapp