ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umer Ata Bandial observed on Wednesday that amendments to the National Accountability Bureau law were made eight months ago, but still no procedure was available for its enforcements and for transfer of cases to other forums.
A three-member SC bench, headed by CJP Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman’s petition, challenging the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
The chief justice observed that the NAB amendments had shut the door on pending cases as hundreds of NAB cases were being transferred from courts, but nobody knew where those cases should be transferred.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen said if the government had time for changing words in the NAB law, then why it lacked proper procedure for shifting of cases?
The chief justice observed that the court did not want to exercise the powers of the government, but it was not known yet which forum would take up those cases that were returned by the NAB courts after amendments were made to the NAB law.
Makhdom Ali Khan submitted that cases would be adjudicated upon where it were taken up 50 years before the establishment of NAB. The counsel submitted that if the court would pass an appropriate order for a forum, cases would be shifted there.
The chief Justice remarked that why the court should pass such an order, adding that there should be a system under the law.
The CJP remarked that good governance was necessary for ensuring fundamental rights of citizens, guaranteed by the Constitution. He observed that corruption was related to enforcement of law, neat and clean government as well as social justice. “Good governance is necessary for ensuring fundamental rights of citizens and it also means that every citizen of the country must be aware of the country’s laws,” the chief justice remarked, adding that nobody would be fearful while coming out of home without a weapon in the night when there would be a good government in the country.
The chief justice observed that people were being deprived of cash from their digital accounts through Whatsapp messages. When there would be an honest system, nobody would hesitate to make investment, the CJP added. The CJP said that under the Constitution, everyone has the right to life, adding that in ancient times, the right to life might have been ensured only by provision of food, clothes and shelter, but in today’s life, education and proper health facilities were necessary for a living.
“Corruption has affected the right to living,” the CJP remarked adding that today two girls were recovered after five years of their abduction, as there was no system while the police had to take help of intelligence agencies.
The counsel for the federal government, Makhdom Ali Khan, while continuing his arguments, submitted that the court would have to examine as to whether the NAB amendments violated the fundamental rights of citizens.
“By invoking Article 184(3) of the Constitution, it was necessary to determine the direct violation of fundamental rights in the instant matter,” the counsel contended.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen, however, observed that the apex court had vast powers to deal with any matter. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel whether the petitioner should have approached the high court before pleading to hear his petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
“Still the court was not told as to which fundamental rights have been affected through the NAB amendments,” the judge observed adding that if the court was not convinced on the point of fundamental rights, then the question of public importance would come at a later stage.
The counsel, however, submitted that the government could not make such laws that were repugnant to fundamental rights. He submitted that if the NAB amendments were against the Islamic principles, then the Federal Shariat Court would determine it.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the counsel if the Federal Shariat Court set aside the NAB amendments, then what would happen.
The counsel replied that there was a clear difference between powers and jurisdiction. He submitted that the apex court could send back the law to parliament declaring it as wrong, but could not set aside it. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for Thursday (today) while Makhdom Ali Khan would continue his arguments.