Supreme Court’s landmark verdict: striking down NAB amendments; restoration of corruption cases against public office holders
In a momentous development that has sent
shockwaves through the political landscape, the Supreme Court has struck a
decisive blow to politicians, invalidating specific sections of the NAB law
amendments and issuing a resounding call for adherence to the law.
In an eagerly awaited verdict, the Supreme
Court, with a majority decision of 2 to 1, has upheld former Prime Minister
Imran Khan's petition challenging the amendments made to the National
Accountability Ordinance (NAO) of 1999 during the tenure of the PDM-led
government. The court has further ordered the revival of corruption cases
against public officeholders that had been shelved following these adjustments.
In a landmark decision, the court has ruled
the amendments null and void. Consequently, it has directed the National
Accountability Bureau (NAB) to return all case records to the relevant courts
within seven days.
This verdict underscores that the amendments
in question had a significant impact on the constitutional rights of the
public. Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandial, announcing the ruling in
his final session before retirement, declared, "By a majority of 2:1
(Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah dissenting), Constitution Petition No. 21 of
2022 is allowed." The court has also invalidated the judgments handed down
by the accountability courts based on the amended laws.
A written order states, "All inquiries,
investigations, and references that were disposed of based on the struck-down
sections are reinstated to the positions they held before the enactment of the
2022 Amendments and shall be considered pending before the relevant fora."
Furthermore, the court has directed both the
NAB and accountability courts to proceed with the reinstated proceedings in
strict accordance with the law. "The NAB and/or all other fora shall
forthwith return the record of all such matters to the relevant fora and in any
event not later than seven days from today, which shall be proceeded with in
accordance with law from the same stage these were at when the same were
disposed of/closed/returned," the order added.
This majority verdict is being viewed as a
setback for major political parties, particularly the PML-N and PPP leadership,
as their previously closed cases are set to be revived.
A three-judge special bench, led by CJP
Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah,
conducted an extensive 53 hearings on Imran Khan's petition.
The ruling elucidated that the petition was
considered valid due to violations of Articles 9 (security of person), 14
(inviolability of dignity of man), 24 (protection of property rights), and 25
(equality of citizens) of the Constitution. It highlighted how the unlawful
diversion of state resources from public development projects to private use
led to poverty, a deteriorating quality of life, and injustice, affecting the
public at large.
The court's verdict addressed various sections
of the amendments, such as Section 3 of the Second Amendment, which altered the
definition of 'offence' in the NAB Ordinance, specifying a minimum pecuniary
jurisdiction of Rs500 million below which the NAB couldn't take cognizance of
corruption charges. This, the court argued, encroached upon the judicial
domain, as only the judiciary, and in rare cases the president, can grant
pardons under Article 45 of the Constitution.
The court underscored how this change
effectively exempted elected public officeholders from accountability laws,
thereby undermining Articles 9, 14, 23, and 24 of the Constitution and Article
62(1)(f), which mandates the selection of upright individuals for parliamentary
roles.
The verdict also noted that the unequal
treatment between persons in the service of Pakistan and elected public
officeholders under the amended Section 9(a)(v) and the omission of Section
14(c) violated Article 25 of the Constitution.
In addition, the court discussed the impact of
the amendments on the admissibility of foreign evidence, particularly how the
omission of Section 21(g) made the process protracted and cumbersome. This, the
court argued, hindered access to justice and protection of public property.
The ruling also condemned the exclusion of
accountability courts by the second proviso to Section 25(b) of the NAB
Ordinance, stating that it undermined the independence of the judiciary and
violated Article 175(3) of the Constitution.
Lastly, the court stressed that allowing
accused persons to renege from their plea bargains would confer an unlawful
benefit upon them, circumventing the consequences stipulated in Section 15(a)
of the NAB Ordinance.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's verdict
marks a significant turning point in Pakistan's political and legal landscape,
reinstating corruption cases against public officeholders and asserting the
importance of upholding constitutional principles and equal treatment before
the law.
Post a Comment