Supreme Court judge wants full court to hear NAB amendments case

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said on Friday it would be an embarrassment for him if he did not decide before his retirement a petition challenging the amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

However, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah stressed formation of full court for hearing the instant matter.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of former prime minister and Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the former coalition government in the NAO 1999.

As hearing into the case commenced, Justice Mansoor said he wanted to say something and cited the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.

The judge, while referring to the Act, stressed constituting the full court to hear the NAB amendments case under challenge, adding that after introduction of the Act, matters pertaining to cases adjudicated upon under Article 184(3) of the Constitution must be heard by a five-member larger bench or a full court.

Justice Mansoor recalled that earlier, during the course of hearing of the matter related to trial of accused persons in military courts, he had given his note stressing formation of full court, and now he would again stress formation of the full court.

“If a full court is not constituted for hearing the matter, then I believe that the court should first decide the pending matter of Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2013 and then move on further,” Justice Shah remarked.

The judge added that in the present situation, the court could not hear the instant petition, challenging the NAB amendments case. Justice Shah further said that the apex court had not yet decided the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, adding that the matter would have been different had that act decided earlier.

CJ Bandial, however, observed that the NAB amendments under challenge had been pending since 2022, adding that Khawaja Haris, counsel for the petitioner, had argued before the court in more than 22 hearings, while counsel for the then federal government Makhdoom Ali Khan had presented his arguments in some 19 hearings.0

“This case was not as lengthy as we have made it,” the CJ remarked and asked counsel for both the parties to prepare for their final arguments on the next date of hearing.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that each case had its own facts and merits, adding that the opinion given in one case was only for that instant case.

The CJ said that from August 28, the court would hear the instant matter on daily basis.

During the hearing, an associate of Khawaja Haris informed the court that the counsel was very busy in the cases pending in trial courts; however, he submitted that in pursuance of the court’s last order, he had submitted his response.

Meanwhile, Justice Mansoor asked Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for the previous government, about his opinion as to whether the bench could continue hearing the instant matter or a full court should hear it.

Makhdoom also supported the full court proposition, to which the CJ said the learned counsel had extensively argued before the court and now trying to prolong the case. “I don’t understand as to why you are leaving hearing,” the CJ told Makhdoom Ali Khan.

“Let’s not create problems, but come up with some solutions,” the CJ remarked.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, however, replied that he did not want to linger on the case, but added that raising his points pertaining to inadmissibility of the plea was his responsibility.

“Anyhow, bear it in mind that dissent is a dissent, whereby there may be difference of opinion, but only the majority judgment prevails,” the CJ told Ali Khan.

Similarly, the chief justice said the court could also give their opinion on the question of maintainability as well.

Justice Mansoor observed that from day one of the instant case, he had repeatedly asked the counsel for the petitioner as to which fundamental rights of the petitioner had been violated through the amendments. The judge, however, added that during the 47 hearing, conducted so far in the instant case, his questioned was not yet answered.

Meanwhile, the chief justice, without mentioning himself, said that one of them was going to retire next month, but said he wanted to conclude all pending matters, adding that it would be an embarrassment for him if he did not conclude the case before his retirement.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing until August 28, directing counsel for both parties to prepare themselves for their final arguments.