Not court job to settle parliament’s disputes: CJ

ISLAMABAD:

While hearing a plea challenging the changes in the accountability law, the country’s top judge on Tuesday said it was not the job of the court to resolve the disputes of parliament.

A three judge-bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah resumed the hearing of PTI chief Imran Khan’s petition challenging the current government’s amendments to the  National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

The SC sought the details of the cases which have either been removed because of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments or transferred to  relevant forums.

It also wanted the details of the amount recovered through plea bargaining.

Justice Shah asked for the details of the cases which were decided under the NAB amendments and the number of those returned.

“How much truth is there in the impression that any case has been eliminated or rendered ineffective because of the NAB amendments?” the judge inquired.

The NAB special prosecutor replied that no case initiated by the anti-graft body had been ended because the amendments.

“NAB has not ended prosecution in any case. Some NAB cases have only been transferred to relevant forums after the amendments,” he added.

Justice Shah told the prosecutor to submit the details of the cases which were decided on merit after the NAB amendments.

The CJP sought the details of the NAB cases that had benefitted from the amendments.

Justice Ahsan noted that the cases of corruption involving less than Rs500 million had automatically become ineffective because of the  amendments and transferred to other forums.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of the federal government, pointed out  that the court should also know what NAB did with the money collected from the plea bargaining.

He maintained that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of parliament had asked the NAB chairman about the amount of money recovered through plea bargaining, but the latter did not respond.

To this, the SC sought the details of the amount of money recovered through plea bargaining.

The lawyer also asked the court to inquire from petitioner Imran about how many NAB cases were concluded during his tenure.

To this, CJP Bandial noted that it was not the court’s job to resolve parliament’s disputes and it should do that itself.

He added that a law against corruption had existed since the country’s creation and Imran was probably concerned over the amendments changing the requirements of the original legislation.

The CJP asked whether or not the court could interpret the fundamental rights by itself.

The lawyer told him that the court could only intervene when a branch of the government overstepped its jurisdiction.

Justice Ahsan noted that the issue before the court in connection with the NAB amendments was about public trust in parliament.

He added that if it was proven in the court that public trust had been breached, the SC would decide on the NAB amendments from any angle.

“If the court does not intervene in any legal violation, it will be extremely unfair to the people and this case will decide a red line on the NAB law,” he added.

At the start of the proceedings, the CJP observed that the government;s legal team had been further strengthened after the appointment of the new attorney general for Pakistan.

Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday (today).