Justice Minallah laments Supreme Court's 'unflattering' treatment of elected representatives

Justice Minallah had dissented in the apex court's 4:1 ruling on live-streaming of NAB law amendments case.

ISLAMABAD:

Justice Athar Minallah, the only jusdge who gave a dissenting note in the Supreme Court of Pakistan's 4:1 ruling against live-streaming the proceedings of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law amendments case has said that the apex court's approach towards the treatment of elected representatives has been " unflattering."

The top court judge, in his 13-page long dissenting note released on Wednesday, stated that the approach of the Court should be "in favour of the millions of followers and their representatives".

Referring to the "grave wrong done" in denying an elected Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the right to a fair trial, he maintained that the "damage [done by the court] was irretrievable."

"The perception of the existence of a coercive apparatus of the State cannot be ignored by a constitutional court, particularly having regard to the unjustified treatment of representatives of the people in the past. The perception of complicity of this Court in or by allowing the elected representatives to be humiliated, harassed, and persecuted for other than bona fide reasons is not unfounded," says Justice Minallah in his minority opinion.

The judge said that Imran Khan, like other former elected prime ministers, has millions of followers across the country, as has become "evident from the results of the last general elections."

"He is definitely not an ordinary prisoner or convict."

"The public has a fundamental right under Article 19-A of the Constitution to have access to information in its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution," read the note.

The apex court judge referred to the right conferred by Article 19-A of the Constitution, saying that it "is operative and justiciable."

"Cases heard by this Court on its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, including review petitions and other matters arising therein, are matters of public importance within the meaning and scope of that expression used in Article 19-A of the Constitution."

On June 1, the apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Aminuddin Khan, Athar Minallah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, while explaining its decision to reject the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa advocate general’s application to live-stream the proceedings of the federal government’s intra-court appeals against its September 15 verdict that struck down amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, noted that there was a real probability that the hearings might be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes.

“In live-streaming cases, there is always a possibility that the facility may be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes. There is also the possibility of grandstanding while the nation watches. This court must be vigilant against such misuse and/or exploitation,” read a six-page written order authored by four judges, namely Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi.

On May 20, the provincial government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa moved the SC seeking a live broadcast of the NAB law amendments case.

The petition stated that the apex court and TV channels live-streamed the hearing earlier, hearing on intra-court appeals against the NAB amendments; however, the last hearing was not aired.

The last hearing on the NAB case featured a public appearance by incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan after around nine months.

The apex court expressed annoyance at the violation of court rules, after pictures of incarcerated Imran went viral on social media, showing him attending the apex court proceedings from the prison via a video link.

In 2022, amendments were introduced to the accountability laws of the country under the then-Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government.

These amendments brought about significant alterations to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. Among the changes were the reduction of the term for the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, the restriction of NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving amounts exceeding Rs500 million, and the transfer of all ongoing inquiries, investigations, and trials to the appropriate authorities.

Following these amendments, Imran filed a petition in 2022 challenging the changes. He asserted that the alterations to the NAB law were made with the intention of favoring influential accused individuals and legitimizing corrupt practices.

The petition contended that the recent amendments appeared designed to dismiss corruption cases against high-ranking officials, including the president, prime minister, chief ministers, and ministers. It also claimed that the amendments provided an avenue for convicted public office-holders to potentially overturn their convictions.