The Supreme Court continued on Wednesday hearing former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan’s petition against amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), the law under which the country’s anti-corruption watchdog the National Accountabilty Bureau operates.
The plea, filed in June, contends that the NAB amendments scrapped cases against influential politicians including the prime minister, chief ministers, ministers and the president. It also provided an opportunity to convicted office-holders to get their sentences overturned.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial is heading the three-member bench, which includes Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, hearing the case. In a hearing a day earlier, the jurists of the top court had observed that the amendments benefitted legislators while it was passed by an “incomplete” National Assembly. The situation arose in the wake of 123 PTI lawmakers’ en masse resignation. The resignations were initially accepted by outgoing Deputy speaker Qasim Suri. The Islamabad High Court had overturned that decision declaring that it was done without verification. The incoming NA speaker, Raja Pervez Ashraf, initiated phase-wise acceptance of resignations of PTI lawmakers, which has since been challenged by ten of the lawmakers whose resignations have been accepted.
In today’s hearing, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether PTI lawmakers were part of the NA.
Khawaja Haris, who is Imran Khan’s lawyer, replied that all members of the PTI had resigned from the NA and that by-elections were held on some of those seats, with PTI being successful on those. He said the speaker was not accepting accepting the remaining resignations as a political strategy.
Justice Shah remarked that the Assembly cound not stay incomplete and no constituency could be left unrepresented. He inquired whether the PTI leaders had appeared before the NA speaker as ordered by the IHC.
Imran’s lawyer said that those whose resignations were accepted did not appear before the speaker. He insisted that the speaker had accepted some resignations at random.
Justice Ahsan asked why all the resignations weren’t accepted at the same time, adding that whichever member had a problem with the decision could have objected to it.
Justice Shah categorically asked the Khawaja Haris whether PTI lawmakers were ready to resign if the NA speaker was ordered to accept the resignation.
Haris said that the PTI was ready if the court ordered it. He said that PTI was demanding early elections and that the current government came to power as a result of corruption and in violation of the public trust.
Justice Mansoor Shah inquired whether the PTI has the right to resign from the assembly or not.
Haris said that the current assembly was formed by breaking public trust and is incomplete, upon which Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that it was the PTI’s view. If the PTI has a problem with it, then they should quit the NA.
Imran Khan’s lawyer repeated that the party’s demand remained early elections.
Justice Ahsan said that was a political matter and should he disccussed at the appropriate forum.
Justice Shah said that the question of resignations was constitutional and not political. “If the resignations are not accepted, why does PTI not approach the court?”
Chief Justice Bandial remarked that several PTI petitions are pending in the courts.
Imran’s lawyer Khan said that their demand was to go to the public and seek general elections. “Political questions cannot be answered legally.”
Justice Bandial remarked that the court should not comment on political matters. Whether to go to the assembly or not is PTI’s political decision, he said while emphasising the importance of institutions functional. “The parliament is a fundamental institution. The question is that if a major political party opts out of the NA, how will the parliament function.”
Justice Shah said that the people repose their trust in the parliament. He said that the members should only decide against being part of the assembly if they are physically unable to do so. “Otherwise, the members should raise their voice in the House.”
Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan asked whether there was a discussion on the NAB amendments in the Senate. “If there is no debate on the law in the House, what is the solution other than resignation?”
Upon this, Imran’s lawyer said the amendments were also approved by the Senate without discussion.
Wednesday’s hearing marked the completion of arguments by Imran Khan’s lawyer.
The state’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan will start his arguments in the second week of January.
Earlier in July, the federal cabinet passed the National Accountability (Third Amendment) Bill, 2022, with fresh legislation aiming to restrict the watchdog’s role in corruption cases of over Rs500 million and taking away the president’s authority to appoint accountability court judges.
The joint session of the Parliament on June 10 approved the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Bill, 2021. The bill was opposed and returned unsigned by President Arif Alvi before it became law.
