ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial said on Monday the anti-graft agency could not question the accused about how he made the assets owing to changes made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and included Justices Ijazul Ahsen and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the case of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) contesting the coalition government’s modifications to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
At the start of the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court needs to determine if the amendments to the NAB law violates basic human rights. The court would also view how the amendments have affected the rights of the petitioner.
The chief justice said that while persons are excused from paying taxes if they disclose the money in an amnesty scheme, the violation remains if the source of income is not disclosed. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court needs to determine if the amendments to the NAB law violates basic human rights. The court would also view how the amendments have affected the rights of the petitioner.
Continuing his arguments, Khwaja Haris Ahmed, counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI), claimed that the anti-graft body could not recover the outstanding amount of plea bargain due to changes in the NAB law.
The counsel submitted that in the event of the failure to deposit the outstanding installments by the accused, the matter will go to the trial court but added that the case will come to an end as the NAB has no jurisdiction to proceed in this regard after the amendments.
Then, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah questioned if the NAB was recovering the outstanding amount before the amendments and if the outstanding amount of 2018 was cleared in 2021. Khwaja Haris, however, replied that the NAB could better inform the court in this regard but added that the anti-graft body was receiving the installments as per the settled schedule. The counsel further told the court that before the amendment to the NAB law, recoveries were made through the Land Revenue Act.
Khwaja Haris repeated that after the amendments and the abolishing of plea bargain, the accused could re-claim the amount they had deposited through plea bargain. “It seems that there will be no further recovery after the amendments made to the NAB law,” Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said.
But Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the amendments do not mean that there will be no more recovery but that the accused who failed to deposit their outstanding amount of plea bargain will be proceeded against in trial courts and they could be awarded punishment as well.
At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, said that when the case goes to trial court and after the case is found to be less than Rs500 million, it could come to an end as the NAB has no more jurisdiction after the amendments.
The judge further observed that the accused could be arrested again if the payments were not recovered through the Land Revenue Act. How will an accused of plea bargaining be sentenced if he becomes a defaulter? Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked
Khwaja Haris replied that the amendments have abolished the powers of the NAB since 1985. When the powers of the anti-graft body were clipped, then how could the recovered amount of plea bargain be sustained, Khwaja Haris questioned, adding that whatever the status of the offense, the trial courts were sending back cases to the NAB having an amount of less than Rs500 million.
Khwaja Haris again submitted: “How a person is required to deposit the amount of a plea bargain when he knows that he could benefit from the enactment of a new law.” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel to state that he had not yet arrived at the basic point of the case. “Still, you are required to convince the court as to how the fundamental rights have been infringed upon due to the amendments under challenge,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah told the counsel.
Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that it is being established that even after the plea bargain, the confessional offence of the accused will not be counted as after the amendments the accused cannot be questioned under Section 9 (a) (5) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 as to how he made assets.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the learned counsel who maintained the accounts of Rikshaw walas and Faloody walas. Khwaja Haris replied that these fake accounts belong to Abdul Ghani Majeed and his company as benamidar. He further submitted that the total outlay of fake accounts was estimated at Rs42 billion, but the Omni Group cited only Rs850 million through the amnesty scheme.
The counsel contended that now these accounts were also given protection through the amnesty scheme, adding that now the NAB could not ask anybody who benefited from the amnesty scheme.
The chief justice, however, observed that although people are exempted from tax after showing the money in an amnesty scheme, the offence remains if the source of income does not come to light. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday (today) till 1pm while Khwaja Haris continues his arguments.
