SC reserves verdict in NAB amendment case

The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) has reserved the verdict in the NAB amendment case, to be announced soon.

On Tuesday, the three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial comprising Justice Mansoor and Justice Ijazul Ahsan heard Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition against the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial said that the SC would announce a “short and sweet” verdict soon. 

CJP maintained that the date of the verdict would be announced later. 

He also clarified that the decision would be announced before he retires.

CJP questioned if a law could be sent back to the parliament if the court found any problems in the law. He also asked what would happen to the law’s implementation in the meantime.

Justice Shah remarked that the court could consider the law itself if it found it to be a matter of fundamental rights.

However, he asked which fundamental rights were being affected by the law.

Justice Ahsan replied that corruption in public property affects the fundamental rights of the country’s citizens.

Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said before the bench that many cases that were pending under the NAB law had already been returned after the amendments were passed. He added that the Bureau had no powers to send the cases to another forum to complete the investigation.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that special powers were not needed to send the cases to another forum.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that if a murder was committed in NAB, the case would inevitably go to the appropriate forum.

Khawaja Haris replied that so far, the amendments had only resulted in people being released.

CJP questioned why the law was being applied retrospectively. He said that the aim could be that a person already sentenced for corruption could get his punishment revoked and regain his assets.

However, Justice Shah asked whether the parliament had the power to make legislation that could be applied to past decisions.

 Justice Shah also questioned if the court had the power to tell parliament that a law had been made based on malice.

More to follow…