In Islamabad, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing a petition filed by the Chairman of the PTI against amendments made to the NAB (National Accountability Bureau) laws.
During the hearing’s commencement, the Chief Justice engaged in a conversation with the lawyer representing the PTI Chairman. The Chief Justice pointed out a recent change in the amendment law, which no longer recognizes the status of evidence obtained under Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). This means that NAB will now have to obtain evidence from foreign sources directly, which could prove costly.
The Chief Justice raised concerns about the admissibility of evidence obtained from foreign sources and questioned the lawyer about his earlier statement that evidence from abroad, apart from MLA, was available. However, the lawyer clarified that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) receives details of assets from foreign countries, and the information it obtains cannot be used as direct evidence.
In response, the Chief Justice emphasized that it is the responsibility of NAB to provide and prove the evidence, and the courts will assess its legal validity. He cited an example where Swiss courts did not accept evidence from their own country against Asif Zardari.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan interjected, stating that Swiss cases were closed due to time limitations, not a lack of evidence. The lawyer pointed out that the Attorney General’s request for assistance from Swiss authorities was made without specifying the applicable law.
The Chief Justice then inquired about the rights of the complainant in the law. The lawyer explained that the constitution primarily grants transparent trial rights to the accused, not the complainant. The Chief Justice highlighted issues in the criminal justice system, where a significant number of cases lead to settlements due to a lack of cooperation between prosecution and investigation, ultimately resulting in justice being denied to many complainants.
The lawyer emphasized that in some cases, complainants themselves refuse to identify the accused due to fears of retaliation after acquittal.
When Chairman PTI’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, began presenting arguments, the Chief Justice expressed concerns about accused individuals in NAB custody being pressured into negotiating plea bargains. The lawyer acknowledged instances of plea bargains under pressure and mentioned a case in Sindh where assets were re-evaluated after the initial plea bargain agreement.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan added that after the amendments, amounts received in installments under plea bargains would need to be returned. The Chief Justice inquired about the extent of legal assistance from abroad in Pakistani law, to which Khawaja Haris argued that it had not been given much importance.
The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of concluding NAB cases before May 2023 and directed Khawaja Haris to complete his arguments by 12:30 that day. The Additional Attorney General requested more time until Monday, but Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan insisted on receiving written submissions due to time constraints.
During the hearing, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah expressed concerns about the NAB amendments, emphasizing the importance of the parliamentary democratic system in Pakistan’s constitution. He suggested that the new Parliament should address the amendments after the upcoming general elections to avoid undermining the entire system.
The Chief Justice mentioned instances where the NAB law had been misused against businessmen and expressed sympathy for those who had been harmed. He also stressed the importance of not changing the nature of a crime, emphasizing the detrimental effects of corruption on society.
During the hearing, the Accountability Bureau submitted a report detailing individuals who benefited from the NAB amendments. Notable figures mentioned in the report included former President Asif Zardari and former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, among others. Several cases were transferred or returned due to the amendments, resulting in various outcomes for those involved.
