PTI again knocks top court’s door against NAB law tweaks

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court on Monday against a refusal by the registrar’s office to entertain his constitution petition challenging recent amendments to the country’s accountability law.

The former prime minister, through his counsel Khawaja Haris, filed an appeal in the chamber against the registrar's office’s objections, contending that it was not for the registrar to decide whether on the basis of the pleadings made and grounds urged in the constitution petition, the “ingredients” for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court were “satisfied” or not.

A day earlier, the apex court’s registrar’s office had raised five objections against the PTI’s petition and stated that the petitioner had not highlighted what matters of public importance were involved in the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution so as to directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3).

“The ingredients for involving extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution have not been satisfied,” a statement issued by the office read.

Read Cabinet defangs NAB, again

The top court registrar’s office also objected that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate forum available under the law besides not providing any justification for not doing so.

It was further pointed out that the advocate-on-record (AOR) had not provided a certificate as required under Rule 6 of Order XXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Ex-PM Imran had argued that tweaks to the ordinance would pave way for public office-holders to get away with white-collar crimes. The constitutional petition was filed under Article 184(3) through lawyer Khawaja Haris, the counsel for PML-N supremo and former premier Nawaz Sharif in the Panamagate case.

Challenging the objections on Monday, the PTI in its appeal argued that the grounds raised in the instant constitution petition are akin and similar to the grounds on the basis of which suo motu cognizance has already been taken by this court in suo motu previously.

"Prima facie violation of Article 10A, 25 and 4 of the Constitution in that the subject-matter of the instant case too is the gross undermining of the criminal justice system (qua white-collar crime) by persons in authority (i.e. holders of public office) in relation to offences of corruption and corrupt practices pending at various stages under the NAO, 1999.”

In this respect it is pertinent to note that the fact that such amendments in the accountability laws as form the basis of the constitution petition are indeed violative of the fundamental rights of the “society as a whole” is also evident from the reason forming basis of this court’s suo motu notice, as specified, inter alia, in the press release on May 18, the appeal read.

The appeal further contended that the satisfaction of the “ingredients for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution” is further spelt out by the fact that all the grounds pleaded and questions of law raised in the appellant’s constitution petition are inextricably linked to safeguarding the economic life of the nation and its citizens which, as held repeatedly by this court, is a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9, 14, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

It also stated that whether such a question is involved and merits adjudication by this court is, as per the express words employed in Article 184(3), to be considered and decided by this court, and not the registrar.

The appeal prayed the SC to set aside the registrar order and direct to assign a number to the constitution petition and fix it for hearing before a bench.