ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the appeal filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan against the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) and observed that the country was experiencing political instability and crisis.
A three-member special bench of the apex court, comprised of the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the case.
The chief justice mentioned general elections and stated that the solution to all problems in the country was possible through the decision of the people.
He added that eight months have passed since the incumbent government took over and the Election Commission of Pakistan had said it would be ready to hold polls in November 2022.
Justice Bandial maintained that the current Parliament was deliberately kept incomplete and legislation passed by the Parliament was becoming controversial.
During the hearing, the federal government’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan continued his arguments. He said that the apex court should be careful of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The article states that the Supreme Court under Article 184(3), can pass orders as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II. However, the power under Article 184(3) can only be exercised if the element of “public importance” is involved in the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Read Key political leaders among beneficiaries of NAB amendments
Makhdoom said that if the apex court declared the NAO amendments null and void under Article 184(3) then standards would fall. He added that the relevant Article was applicable to public matters.
CJP Bandial maintained that the facts of the present case were different and that the head of the country's largest political party – the PTI – had challenged the NAB amendments.
Commenting on the political crisis he stated that the PTI first adopted the strategy of leaving Parliament and questioned why it decided to return.
“Petitioner Imran Khan is not an ordinary citizen. Even after he left government, he has several supporters,” Justice Bandial said.
He furthered that the court did not want to interfere in legislation and highlighted that the court did not take automatic notice, but an application came forth against the NAB amendments”.
According to the CJP, the rule of an honest prime minister was abolished under Article 58(2)(B) of the Constitution which was a “draconian” law.
He recalled that in 1993, the court had declared the government had been dismissed in a wrong manner, and that elections should be held.
Justice Bandial continued that now that Imran was not in the assembly, legislation such as NAB amendments were becoming controversial.
He concluded that in the ongoing case, Imran’s right to the claim did not matter.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ