close
Wednesday November 27, 2024

Changes in NAB law: Supreme Court wonders if only Imran affected in 250m people

The apex court said no other political party or citizen than Imran Khan challenged the amendments to the NAB law

By News Desk
December 07, 2022
Imran Khan photographed on November 9, 2022. Screengrab of a Twitter video
Imran Khan photographed on November 9, 2022. Screengrab of a Twitter video

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that no political party or citizen, except Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan, has challenged the amendments to the NAB law, questioning why only Imran has been affected from the NAB amendments.

A special three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the plea challenging amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, local media reported.

Imran Khan’s counsel, in his arguments during the hearing, said that Islam orders accountability of government officials. “In Islam the ruler is responsible for any injustice in the country,” Khawaja Haris argued.

“No political party or citizen, except Imran Khan, has challenged the amendments in the NAB law,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said.

“Why only Imran Khan has been affected from NAB amendments in the 250 million population of the country?” Justice Mansoor questioned.

“The court should dismiss the petition against the NAB amendments if it has no substantial grounds,” the counsel said.

“The court has not been told yet about the fundamental rights affected by the amendments to the law,” Justice Mansoor said.

“No doubt accountability is compulsory in the country. The question is who will ensure accountability process in the country,” he asked.

“Those making the accountability process uncertain could not be exempted from it,” Khawaja Haris said.

“Those being acquitted with the NAB amendments can be convicted under another law,” Justice Mansoor said. “It cannot happen that a person plunders everything and sits safe at home,” he observed.

“It is possible that other law on corruption might be weaker,” he said. “Under what authority the Supreme Court should order strengthening the law?” he questioned.

The court adjourned further hearing of the case till today (Dec 7).