IHC larger bench to hear NAB cases

High court’s CJ says effects of amendments yet to be seen

ISLAMABAD:

A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court would hear all the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s ongoing cases in the wake of the current government’s amendments to its law, its chief justice on Thursday decided.

Separately, the government’s lawyer  told the Supreme Court that the PTI chairman’s petition against the changes in the country’s accountability law had raised 47 legal questions, but only four of them gave reference to constitutional provisions.

In the IHC, the decision about a larger bench was made by its CJ Aamer Farooq while hearing applications about the fate of the cases after changes in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

A division bench comprising the IHC CJ and Justice Thaman Rifat Imtiaz conducted the hearing as Additional Attorney General Munawar Iqbal Duggal appeared before the court.

The anti-graft body was represented by Deputy Prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar, Muhammad Rafi, and Yasir Rathore.

The IHC CJ remarked that the effects of the amendments were yet to be seen.
He added that it was yet to be decided how the NAB cases would be divided between courts.

However, he decided that all the anti-graft body’s ongoing cases would be heard a larger bench until then.

The IHC CJ directed the court Registrar’s Office to place all the cases before a larger bench.

In the SC, 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 and deposed premier Imran Khan’s petition challenging the government’s amendments to the NAO.

Justice Shah inquired that it was not clarified in the amended NAB law about the transfer of the cases.

Federal government’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that a committee, headed by the NAB chairman, was looking into which appropriate forums should the cases be transferred to.

The CJP remarked that the court would limit itself to the NAB law amendments of 2022 in the ongoing case.

The lawyer contended that the petitioner had not correctly mentioned the facts.
He added that the petition raised 47 legal questions, but just four of them gave reference to constitutional provisions.

He said the first two questions were related to the referendums held during the tenures of former military rulers, Gen Ziaul Haq and Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.
The lawyer argued that 21 of them were not really questions and they did not refer to the amendments or fundamental rights.

He maintained that 16 of the questions had referred to the amendments but not mentioned the fundamental rights being violated.

Similarly, he said six questions had raised the issue of fundamental rights but not referred to the amendments.

Khan pointed out that Imran had also mentioned an “imported conspiracy” in his plea.

However, he added that as per the newspapers in recent days, this “imported conspiracy” had been turned into an “exported” one.

The CJP noted that the lawyer had conducted a “forensic audit” of the petition.
He added that court wanted to quickly dispose of the case as there were other serious matters that required its attention.

Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till February 21.