SC moved against ruling striking down NAB law amendments

SC moved against ruling striking down NAB law amendments. In order to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling of September 15 that struck down some amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, a review petition was filed on Friday.

Immediately after the top court upheld the Practice and Procedure Act 2023, Abdul Jabbar filed a plea in the apex court, through his counsel Farooq H Naek, asking the court to set aside the court’s verdict on the NAB law as a result of the ruling.

As a result of a majority decision given by the Supreme Court on October 11, the law formulated to regulate the affairs of the top court was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court noted that even though the right of appeal provided by Article 184(3) is not applicable to decisions issued prior to the law going into effect, it will apply to those rulings that were issued after the law went into effect, as well.

Due to the fact that the NAB amendments case was a matter of public importance, it fell within the original jurisdiction of the superior court as defined in subsection (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution.

In April, Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and the apex court struck down the amendments to the NAB law in September, allowing for the right of appeal against it to be exercised.

It was in Jabbar’s petition that he stated that he had “condemned unheard” but added that despite the fact that he was not a party to the case earlier, the court had also not issued a notice to him regarding this matter as well, although he was not a party to the case.

It is also stated in the petition that the court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution “with caution” and that the conditions precedent for the exercise of this original jurisdiction are not met in this particular instance.

His contention was that the judgment of September 15 was issued without consideration of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy nor did it set out a principle for striking down legislation based on these principles.

As stated in the petition, “the judgment declares the provisions of the amending Acts of the Parliament as contrary to policy considerations and contrary to what has been referred to as the ‘will of the people’, as described in the subject amendments.

In addition, Jabbar mentioned that through the judgment, the court assumed the role of being a ‘legislator’ and a ‘policy maker’, which is beyond the scope of power granted to the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

During the hearing, the petitioner said that the [order] was tainted with errors floating on the surface of the record and should be reviewed.

As a conclusion to his plea, Jabbar asked that the top court reverse its ruling of September 15 and provide “any other relief” that the superior court may deem appropriate and suitable in light of the evidence presented in the case.

In the end, the verdict was in

Earlier this week, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court approved Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments to the country’s accountability laws made during the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government in a majority 2-1 decision. The petition was filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan.

As a result, the three-member bench, headed by CJP Umar Ata Bandial, and including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, held more than 50 hearings on the petition of PTI chief Khan against the amendments and reserved its judgment for Friday, September 5 following the hearing.

It was found in the majority verdict of the Supreme Court that graft cases against public office holders that had been closed following the amendments of the Constitution had been restored.

In the order of the Supreme Court, all graft cases worth less than Rs500 million that had been closed down against political leaders belonging to different political parties and public office holders have been restored and declared the amendments to be void.

The court also directed the NAB to return all records relating to cases to the relevant courts within seven days of receiving them.

In addition, in the verdict on Khan’s appeal, it was stated that the amendments made by the NAB that were in question had a negative impact on the Constitutional rights of the people.

Due to this verdict, a number of the country’s political bigwigs may once again be brought before the accountability courts with references against them since the striking down of the amendments would mean that references against some of the country’s political bigwigs would once again be brought before them.

In addition, the Toshakhana reference has been filed against the Supreme Commander of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the co-chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Asif Ali Zardari, and the former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, as well as the LNG reference involving former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and the rental power reference involving former prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf.