Better if PTI had debated NAB law in Parliament: Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD: The opposition PTI’s absence in the Parliament again echoed in the Supreme Court on Monday when senior judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the party’s presence in the Parliament would have better enabled it to point out the loopholes in the amended NAB law.

A three-member bench of the apex court — headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — heard the petition filed by former premier and PTI Chairman Imran Khan challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. Justice Mansoor observed that if a political party pushed a bill and legislated a bad law, then the people will not vote that party.

“This is the best practice in democracy wherepeople make accountable political parties for making a wrong legislation,” he remarked. He further observed that had the PTI remained in Parliament, it could have better debated the amendments under challenge.

Khwaja Haris, counsel for PTI contended that the PTI was there in the Senate but the government did not debate the law even for a single day. “Whosoever wants to do anything, they can bulldoze the law in a single day”, Khwaja Haris submitted. Justice Ijazul Ahsen remarked that the citizens were on the streets to which the counsel said the consequences were the amendments and he will come to that point too.

The counsel further submitted that Pakistan was a signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption but the amendments made to the NAB law faded away the minimum standards set by the UN Convention.

According to the UN Convention, a rigid legislation could be made against corruption but here the amendments to the NAB law was just an eye-wash”, Khwaja Haris submitted. Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that minimum standards were not binding on Parliament.

The counsel submitted that the apex court had already given its judgment in 1994 adhering to the UN Convention. “Let us confine ourselves to this commitment made in the Convention. The preamble of Constitution talks about fundamental rights of the people. We should at least respect the spirit of the Constitution,” said the counsel.

Justice Mansoor asked the counsel whether the court could direct the Parliament to make legislation as per the UN Convention. “And if the court can do so, then to what extent the Parliament can abide by it?” Justice Mansoor asked the counsel.

Khwaja Haris replied that the court had given its direction to the Parliament in many cases adding that it had also interpreted many laws in view of the International Conventions. Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that the UN Convention also mentioned about the corruption of private persons, adding that these private persons included consultants, suppliers as well as contractors.

Khwaja Haris replied that in the Bank of Punjab case, there had been allegation of corruption of Rs9 billion against private persons. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel whether other countries had legislated laws in accordance with the UN Convention.

Khwaja Haris replied that he had not gone through the Constitution but the crimes mentioned in the UN Convention against corruption were there in Pakistani law. The counsel contended that under the amendments, the NAB law had been colored in such a manner where a crime or an offence could not be established.

Justice Mansoor asked the counsel where it was mentioned in the amendments that nobody was above accountability. Khwaja Haris replied that most of the criminal cases were related to the fundamental rights of the people adding that in those cases, the money belonged to the public.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the counsel to pin-point such a section in the international law where the mutual legal assistance was made admissible. The judge further whether the amendments under challenge had de-tracked the sections of international convention against corruption.

Khwaja Haris replied that Article 48 of the Convention was related to the Mutual Legal Assistance adding that the evidence provided under Qanoon-e-Shahdat under Article 46 was permissible.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked the PTI counsel whether the NAB law before the amendments complied with the International Convention against corruption to which Khwaja Haris replied in the affirmative.

“There are a number of laws enacted for betterment of the public like fiscal policies wherein the Parliament has held that these laws will be fruitful for the country’s progress as well as beneficial for the public at large,” he said. “Now please tell me where am I in the picture?” Justice Shah asked the PTI counsel.

Khwaja Haris replied that the apex court judgment was there, which was a source of lot of strength for the public. He said such a policy be framed that could ensure and guarantee fundamental rights of the people at large. Haris was on his legs when the court adjourned the hearing for November 8 with the consensus of both the parties.