Supreme Court on Friday sent notice government in connection with Petition by PTI head Imran Khan challenging the recent amendments to the NAB ruling, with the judge notes that parliament who has the power to change the Constitution.
Trinomial bench as part of the Chief Judge of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Judge Ijazul Ahsan and Judge Syed Mansour Ali Shah heard the petition.
The court asked lawyer Imran Khawaja Haris to point out which NAB amendments are contrary to the Constitution and fundamental rights. of in people, with Judge Shah notes that the court can only exercise its powers over has the meaning of parliament when they were unconstitutional.
‘Suitable for waiting for wisdom IHC’
At the beginning of At the hearing, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman said he would assist the court on business while the chief justice noted that the court will only hear the petitionerArguments today.
He noticed that he had been reading Imran’s petition since last night, instructing Haris to present his arguments”in detail” on in how the amendment was contrary to the Constitution and what fundamental rights it violated.
CJP also inquired about the amendments that affected the laws and affairs of NAB.
However, Judge Shah pointed out out that a similar application has been made in Islamabad Supreme Court (IHC), and also proposed that the court should first wait for “Wisdom” IHC on case” before sentencing.
In response to PTI counsel stated that the amendments to the NAB do not concern just one court, but the whole country.
“Accountability is important for run democracy
Haris said that both Islam and the Constitution emphasize accountability.
“Independence of judiciary and accountability of public officials are the main components of Constitution,” he said, arguing that after the amendments public officials “surpassed” the concept of accountability.
Here, chief justice noted that further clarity required on appealing the amendments to the NAB. “Khavaja sahabit would be better if you prepared a short outline on your requests,” he offered.
The CJP said that the lawyer meant the provisions of Islam. of Constitution. “Having a system of checks and balances is extremely important. for democracy. Corruption occurs when you do something illegal and benefit from it,” he said, adding that this would be abuse. of power and loss for coffers.
“If a dam is being built built somewhere the lobby opposes this, then it will be a confrontation national asset”, he said, emphasizing that accountability was important to run democracy and government.
Meanwhile, Judge Shah asked if the court could reinstate the amended NAB law.
“Parliament has the right to change the Constitution”
During today’s hearing, Judge Shah emphasized that Imran’s petition stated that the NAB amendments were contrary to parliamentary democracy and basic structure of Constitution.
“You tell me what amendment against constitution,” he asked. “Your job is to tell us what amendment against Fundamental Rights and the Constitution”.
The judge asked Haris also underline whether the amendments benefited some specific defendants people.
“You want court to ask parliament to improve the law? – he asked.
Haris said that his client wanted the court found the amendments contradictory with The constitution is invalid and void.
Here Judge Shah questioned whether the jurist’s arguments that the law against parliamentary democracy was enough for cancel it.
The judge said that the Constitution does not “basic structure” and several amendments contradicted it.
“Parliament has the right to change the entire Constitution,” he said, adding that the court recognized the Constitution basic structure in constitutional amendment case.
“Major NAB Amendments”
In response to judges’ questions, Haris said there were several amendments “contrary” to the Constitution and gave an example of free education.
“Can the right of free education will be abolished by a constitutional amendment? If a parliament cancels death penalty, can’t that be contested?”
Here Judge Shah said that if parliament should have canceled death penalty“how can we restore it?”
The PTI lawyer replied that if this happens, then first challenge in sharia court.
Independence of the judiciary is “essential”
AT one During the hearing, Judge Bandial said that the independence of the judiciary “is necessary to maintain a balance in Society”.
“Article 4 of The constitution was never discussed in details, but it is very important,” he said, adding that fundamental rights can be suspended, but not Article 4. The law says that the right of faces should be distributed with in conformity with law.
Article 4 deals with an inalienable right of persons who will deal with in conformity with law.
Bandial of Justice also stated that if the PTI accent was on Islam, why don’t you challenge amendment to NAB in Sharia court then?
To this, Haris said that Islamic provisions refer to in the petition has been pinned in Constitution. Continuing his arguments, he said that there were some NAB amendments that were “very critical”.
“Imran Khan demanded that all these amendments be annulled. in his petition,” he remarked.
Subsequently, Judge Ahsan instructed counsel to highlight all such amendments.
Harris said that one such an amendment was that a person who does plea the transaction could not become a witness.
“You say that many NAB amendments made difficult prove in crime”, – said CJP.
Haris continued that, in accordance with the amendments decision on Appendix. Here, the CJP asked the lawyer to tell the court if there was an “emergency regarding assistance.”
“Also say us how the amendment will affect pending cases.”
PTI counsel said he didn’t ask for injunction, but this assistance is pursuant to the amendments should to be made conditional.
The court then sent notice government on in plea as amended and adjourned the hearing until 5 August.
In his petition, the ex-premier called the Federation of Pakistan through its secretary Division of Law and Justice and NAB through its chairman as defendants in a business.
Imran asked the court to rule on issues of “great public importance” with link to enforcement of basic rights of citizens under articles 9 (safety of person), 14 (immunity of dignity of man, etc.), 19A (right to information), 24 (protection of property rights) and 25 (equality of citizens) of Constitution.
Most of he argued that the amendments made to the NAB dealt with specific individuals. “So it’s just and fairly protect constitutional and fundamental rights of townspeople of Pakistan.”
Petition added what’s the amendment of the hand over the right of the president to appoint the bodychairperson government which will “maneuver the mass of holders of public office take control over and influence impartiality of chairman of the NAB.
“Removal of obstacles in normal, time-tested and generally accepted methods of proving “white-collar crimes”, reducing efficiency, transparency and fairness of these laws combined with a free and independent judiciary and freedom of investigators and prosecutors from influence and interference of the very elected representatives whose alleged corruption and acts of corruption they are tasked with investigating and prosecuting.”
He warned that the creation accountability The “weak and ineffective” law was a serious violation of Constitution and stressed that people of Pakistan had the right to keep its elected accountable representatives for their fiduciary actions.
Amendment to the law on NAB
NAB (Second Amendment) Bill 2021 states that NAB Deputy Chairman appointed by the federal government will become Acting Chairman of in bureau after finishing of term of office of chairman.
The bill has also reduced four-year term of NAB chairman and bureau prosecutor general up to three years. After approval of law, the NAB will not be able to act on federal, provincial or local tax matters. Furthermore, regulatory functioning bodies in the country has also was placed out of NAB domain.
it says that “all pending requests, investigations, legal proceedings or proceedings under this ruling relating to persons or transactions … shall be referred to concerned authorities, departments and courts in accordance with the relevant laws.
It has also set three-year term for judges of in accountability courts. So be it also obliges the courts to decide the case within one year. Under the proposed law, made mandatory for NAB ensure availability of proof against the accused before his or her arrest.
According to one of in key amendments, the act “is deemed adopted effect on and from the start of National Accountability Ordinance 1999”.