- Chief Justice Umar termed the NAB amendments as an improvement in the law.
- After the amendments, the NAB law became meaningless, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan
- Intent behind amendments to be examined: Imran’s Council
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that Pakistan Army is not in its purview. NAB Law and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf chairman asked for his opinion on the matter.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of Imran Khan, in which the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) on behalf of the coalition government. The amendments made in it were challenged. 1999.
Justice Mansoor remarked during the hearing that even judges are not outside the jurisdiction of NAB, and asked the lawyer what is the reason for granting immunity to the army from NAB law.
He questioned whether this act of keeping the army outside the scope of NAB law is constitutional or unconstitutional in the eyes of PTI. The judge asked the lawyer to explain this during his arguments today (Tuesday).
Earlier, Justice Mansoor questioned how democracy can thrive when lawmakers prefer to take decisions on the streets instead of parliament.
Khawaja Haris continued his arguments NAB Laws said that the Supreme Court had filled the legal gap in the matter of extending the tenure of the Army Chief and recalled that the Supreme Court had struck down the amendments in the Asfandyar Wali Khan case.
Justice Mansoor remarked that in this case the court invalidated the law for violation of fundamental rights. However, Justice Ijaz Al-Ahsia remarked that the NAB law has become ineffective after some clauses were deleted through recent amendments.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that the petitioner in this case has challenged the amendments and prayed to restore the law in its original form. To which Justice Mansoor replied that fundamental rights are not violated by amendments in NAB law.
Chief Justice Umar He termed the amendments as an “improvement” in the NAB law which had been heavily criticized for loopholes. The Chief Justice remarked that “under the law, any person can be arrested on mere charges and detained for 90 days.”, adding that the recent amendments in the law are a step forward in the law of the land.
However, Imran Khan’s council took a stand that the former prime minister was not in favor of arrest during the investigation in the NAB case.
Khawaja Haris further said that he does not want all the amendments to be repealed but the intention behind the amendments should be examined.
Justice Mansoor remarked that ‘one has to look at the debates on the amendments to the challenges to see the intention of the Parliament’. However, Haris said that there was no debate on the amendments in Parliament.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the counsel for the federation had said that the amendments were made in the light of Supreme Court decisions.
Khawaja Haris replied that ‘NAB’s amendments are not based on the judgments of the Supreme Court’, to which Justice Mansoor inquired whether the public sentiment was also against the amendments or the court should determine that the public was affected by the amendments. .
The judge observed that the NAB amendments had also been challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and asked the PTI counsel if it would be valid when the Supreme Court decides the case. Khawaja Haris replied that it was the petitioner’s choice to approach the IHC.
The Chief Justice said that in the Darshan Masih case, people approached the court for relief. He asked PTI’s lawyer whether the public has approached the court in the NAB amendment case.
Khawaja Haris replied that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had approached the Supreme Court in the Darshan Masih case, adding that there was a desire to establish anti-corruption NGOs. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Tuesday) in which Khawaja Haris will continue his arguments. A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of Imran Khan, in which the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 on behalf of the coalition government. The amendments made in it were challenged.
Justice Mansoor remarked during the hearing that even judges are not outside the purview of NAB, asked the lawyer what is the reason for granting immunity to the army from NAB law.
He questioned whether this act of keeping the army outside the scope of NAB law is constitutional or unconstitutional in the eyes of PTI. The judge asked the lawyer to explain this during his arguments today (Tuesday).
Earlier, Justice Mansoor questioned how democracy can thrive when lawmakers prefer to take decisions on the streets instead of parliament.
Khawaja Haris continued his arguments NAB Laws said that the Supreme Court had filled the legal gap in the matter of extending the tenure of the Army Chief and recalled that the Supreme Court had struck down the amendments in the Asfandyar Wali Khan case.
Justice Mansoor remarked that in this case the court invalidated the law for violation of fundamental rights. However, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that the NAB law has become ineffective after some clauses were deleted through recent amendments.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that the petitioner in this case has challenged the amendments and prayed to restore the law in its original form. To which Justice Mansoor replied that fundamental rights are not violated by amendments in NAB law.
Chief Justice Bandyal termed the amendments as an “improvement” in the NAB Act, which had been heavily criticized for loopholes. The Chief Justice remarked that “under the law, any person can be arrested on mere charges and detained for 90 days.”, adding that the recent amendments in the law are a step forward in the law of the land.
However, the Imran Khan Council took a stand that the former prime minister was not in favor of arrests during the investigation in the NAB case.
Khawaja Haris further said that he does not want all the amendments to be repealed but the intention behind the amendments should be examined.
Justice Mansoor remarked that ‘one has to look at the debates on the amendments to the challenges to see the intention of the Parliament’. However, Khawaja Haris said that there was no discussion on the amendments in Parliament.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the counsel for the federation had said that the amendments were made in the light of Supreme Court decisions.
Khawaja Haris replied that ‘NAB’s amendments are not based on the judgments of the Supreme Court’, to which Justice Mansoor inquired whether the public sentiment was also against the amendments or the court should determine that the public was affected by the amendments. .
The judge observed that the NAB amendments had also been challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and asked the PTI counsel if it would be valid when the Supreme Court decides the case. Khawaja Haris replied that it was the petitioner’s choice to approach the IHC.
The Chief Justice said that in the Darshan Masih case, people approached the court for relief. He asked PTI’s lawyer whether the public has approached the court in the NAB amendment case.
Khawaja Haris replied that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had approached the Supreme Court in the Darshan Masih case, adding that there was a desire to establish anti-corruption NGOs. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Tuesday) in which Khawaja Haris will continue his arguments.