In Islamabad, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the case regarding amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
After completing the arguments, Chief Justice Justice Umar Atta Bandyal stated that a concise ruling would be issued shortly.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that the NAB references’ return reflects the legal direction. The case involving amendments to the NAB was deliberated upon, and Khawaja Haris was asked by the Chief Justice if he had reviewed the NAB report. NAB had provided reasons for returning references until May, which indicates the legal course. The references for individuals returned until May are still under NAB’s jurisdiction, and the Chief Justice inquired about who would be responsible for these cases on NAB’s behalf.
Khawaja Haris responded that many pending cases were returned after the amendments. He also raised the question of whether these amendments contained provisions to refer cases to other forums, emphasizing that much of NAB’s authority had been curtailed. Investigations would precede any referrals to other forums.
The Chief Justice expressed uncertainty about the future of these forums and whether cases would indeed be directed elsewhere. He questioned whether NAB had the authority to transfer cases to other institutions.
Khawaja Haris clarified that NAB no longer had the authority to deal with these cases after the amendments, and there was no legal framework to refer cases to other institutions.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah commented that there might not be a need for legal provisions to refer cases to other forums, as cases would naturally find their way to appropriate forums. He emphasized that this absence of options for referral would be addressed.
He then raised two questions. Firstly, he inquired about the exclusion of serving army officers from NAB’s jurisdiction, citing the presence of specific acts for penalties within the army. Secondly, he questioned why judges of the Supreme Court were not subject to the NAB law, noting that civil servants and politicians had their respective acts for accountability.
The petitioner’s counsel clarified that they had not challenged Clause 5M, which grants exemptions to serving military officers from the NAB law.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial posed a second question regarding the removal of judges from office, outlining the procedures under Article 209. He stressed that the court’s focus was on whether the legislation violated public interest and fundamental rights, rather than the petitioner’s conduct.
The Additional Attorney General informed the court that the Attorney General would submit a written response that day. The Chief Justice expressed regret that a regular bench could not be convened if they had been informed earlier.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan pointed out that all cases in the accountability courts had been frozen, affecting the rights of those involved in substantial cases.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah added that punishments were available for civil officers and public officials, but civil service law only provided for departmental action, not criminal penalties for corruption.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah argued that a corrupt army officer, if not directly serving the public, would still fall under NAB’s jurisdiction if they headed an institution other than the army. He clarified that judges of the High Court had no authority over the NAB Act, and only a judge could be dismissed under Article 209, with no provision for recovery.
Khawaja Haris suggested that NAB should take action if a judge were dismissed.
The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of addressing corruption, smuggling, and illegal capital transfers affecting state assets. He lamented the lack of a clear legal definition for these crimes in the law, emphasizing the state’s responsibility to promote prosperity and security. The Chief Justice also expressed disappointment in the absence of clarity regarding the forums to which cases would be referred.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised the possibility of sending the matter back to Parliament due to flaws in the law, to which the Chief Justice expressed concerns about the consequences of such a move.
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that one parliament’s legislation could be overturned by another.
The Chief Justice mentioned that he no longer takes suo moto actions, learning from past experiences.
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan noted that the NAB law concerning military officers had been approved by the Supreme Court in the past. He pointed out the silence of the NAB law regarding judges and the absence of a forum for addressing grievances against retired judges.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the NAB lawyer why a reference with an amount exceeding 50 million had been sent back. The lawyer explained that after the amendment, references were not related to financial benefits, leading to their return.
The Chief Justice criticized the lack of a clear process for initiating NAB references and questioned whether cases related to Article 62(1)F (lifetime disqualification) were included.
The NAB lawyer mentioned a 2021 amendment that exempted those who hadn’t received financial benefits from NAB references, prompting the Chief Justice to request a list of such references.
The Additional Attorney General assured that they would submit a written statement and address the questions raised by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
The Chief Justice pointed out a flaw in the amendment, which focused solely on financial matters, neglecting abuses of power. He expressed concerns that NAB courts in Peshawar might become obsolete.
The NAB lawyer mentioned that some cases had been returned to NAB, providing statistics for references transferred and returned over the years.
The Chief Justice acknowledged these figures and later announced that the Supreme Court had reserved its decision on the NAB amendments case, with plans to issue a concise order soon.
