Supreme Court Invalidates NAB Law Amendments

 

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.