NAB courts restricted from issuing final verdict

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the accountability courts to continue their proceedings in corruption cases, but stopped them from giving the final orders as it heard the first-ever two intra-court appeals against its Sept 15 majority verdict, which struck down the amendments to the country’s anti-graft law.

A larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, adjourned the hearing of the case until issuance of the detailed judgment on the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 -- a law aimed at limiting the discretionary authority of the top judge.

It also ruled that an accused would also be entitled to seek bail from the trial court.

The bench, which also comprised Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, issued notices to deposed premier and PTI Chairman Imran Khan, attorney general for Pakistan (AGP), Islamabad advocate general as well as the four provincial advocate generals.

The court ordered that the notice should be sent to the PTI chairman in jail through its superintendent.

In June 2022, the PTI chief challenged the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance introduced by the previous PML-N led government in the SC, arguing that the tweaks would pave the way for public office holders to get away with white-collar crimes.

The PTI chief filed a constitutional petition against the amendments under Article 184(3).

The first intra-court appeal was filed by the federal government and the other by former Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) managing director Zuhair Ahmed Siddiqui.

After the detailed decision, the NAB amendments intra-court appeals were ordered to be rescheduled.

The federal government, in an application dated Oct 30, asked the SC to adjourn the hearing for a week starting from Nov 6 because of the unavailability of its lawyer. The plea read Makhdoom Ali Khan, who was representing the government, was “granted general adjournment” until Nov 3 and went to Paris.

Read Justice Mansoor wants NAB law applicable on judges, generals

It added that all return flights to Pakistan on Oct 28 and 29 were “completely sold out, making a timely return impossible” for Makhdoom.

AGP Mansoor Usman Awan, who represented the federal government’s counsel instead, sought the adjournment of the hearing citing that Makhdoom was abroad.

Farook H Naek, who was representing Siddiqui, requested the SC to suspend the earlier judgment on the NAB law amendments but the court rejected it.

Naek apprised the bench that his client was affected by the SC’s majority judgment and filed an application to join the case.

He added that as result of the verdict, his client’s case had been reopened and he was opposing the SC decision.

The top judge told Naek that the dissenting note of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah – who was a member of the earlier bench – on the SC judgment had also been released. He added that if his client wanted, he could alter his petition after going through the dissenting note.

However, he told Naek that if his client filed a review petition, the SC would not hear the intra-court appeal. Naek apprised the court that he was withdrawing his review pleas.

The CJP observed that if the merits were reviewed under the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, the appeals would be restored.

“Shouldn’t we wait for the detailed verdict on the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act?” he asked Naek. Naek said it would cause a delay if the detailed decision was awaited.

He asked the five-member lager bench to carry on its proceedings without any delay.

CJP Isa asked if any of the changes made in the accountability law were retained or all of them had been struck down. Naek replied that the changes made under the third amendment to the law had not been changed.

The bench wondered how the majority judges struck down the first and second amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law without examining the third one introduced in it.

During the hearing, Justice Minallah raised serious questions on the majority decision to declare the NAB amendments null and void.

Read More Several bigwigs land back into NAB's hot waters

He pointed out that the grounds highlighted in the majority judgment were related to the third amendment introduced to the NAB law.

He inquired how the court could have decided the case without the changes under the third amendment being affected.
CJP Isa inquired when the third amendment to the NAB law was passed.

Saad Hashmi, Makhdoom’s assistant lawyer, replied that it was passed in May 2023. Justice Isa noted that there were six hearings held on the matter after the third amendment to the NAB law was introduced.

CJP Isa noted that no one had been acquitted of corruption charges by the NAB law amendments, but only the judicial forums had been changed.

The top court adjourned the hearing of the case until a detailed judgment on the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act was issued. It stopped the accountability courts from issuing final verdicts in graft cases till a decision was made on the current appeals.

The SC also rejected Naek’s request to suspend the court’s earlier judgment on the NAB law.