Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court seeks record of beneficiaries of NAB law in PTI govt

Published

on

  • Govt counsel says amendments in line with previous ones.
  • Says SC should not confine itself only to 386 cases and references.
  • Bringing new amendments to NAB law cannot have a retrospective effect, says SC judge.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the record of beneficiaries of NAB ordinances promulgated during the tenure of Imran Khan from the National Accountability Bureau.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of former prime minister and Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the coalition government to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government, while advancing his arguments, submitted before the court that the present amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999 were in continuation of the previous amendments made to the law.

He submitted that the court should not confine itself only to the 386 cases and references that were sent back by the accountability court after amendments were made to the NAO 1999 by the present government. Makhdom Ali Khan, in response to Justice Ijazul Ahsen’s query the other day, said that since five NAB ordinances were promulgated during the three-and-a-half-year government, the court could have also asked how many references were sent back and how many accused were acquitted through these ordinances and who benefited from it. “Then you should tell us what questions we should pose to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and we will note them down,” Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial told the learned counsel for the federal government.

The counsel replied that the court should ask the NAB how many references were sent back by the accountability courts through the ordinances promulgated by the PTI government.

Similarly, the counsel submitted that the court should also ask the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) how many people got acquitted through the PTI ordinances and how many applications for acquittal were returned by the trial courts.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that even if the anti-graft body law was abolished, other laws could tackle the crimes. The judge said that it was incorrect to say that after being acquitted in the NAB cases and becoming clean, one could go home easily.

“This impression is incorrect that by abolishing the NAB, the grip of the law will also be reduced,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that it was the stance of the petitioner that the standard of establishing the crime has been changed in NAB cases through the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

This is also an important question after being convicted in NAB cases; how could the new amendments be applied with retrospective effect?

“Bringing new amendments to the NAB law could not have a retrospective effect,” Justice Ahsen remarked, adding that it was very strange that the new amendments to the NAB law have such great amnesty.

“I also know that there are other laws besides the NAB laws, but after all, if an accountability court acquits an accused of an offence, he will go home,” the judge remarked.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Thursday). 

Latest News

Today, 190 million pounds in NAB reference cases and cypher will be heard by the IHC.

Published

on

By

The founder of Pakistan, Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), has filed a bail petition against a 190 million-pound NAB reference, and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to hold a hearing today.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC and Justice Tariq Mehmmod Jahangiri, the other member of the two-member bench, will hear the matter promptly at 12 p.m.

Presenting the arguments before the court will be the prosecutor from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) during the hearings.

In addition, today is scheduled for the hearing of the petitions filed by Shah Mehmood Qureshi and PTI founder Imran Khan opposing indictment in the cypher case.

At precisely 2 pm, the cypher case hearing will be presided over by a second two-member bench made up of CJ Aamer Farooq and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb.

Here, the prosecution’s arguments will be made in front of the bench by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) prosecutor.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

To discuss privatisation with the government, Bilawal establishes a committee.

Published

on

By

Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has formed a committee to discuss privatisation concerns with the government.

Sherry Rehman, Syed Naveed Qamar, and Saleem Mandviwalla are among the committee members, according to a notification released by the PPP Chairman’s Secretariat.

The coalition administration has already established a panel to actively pursue the privatisation of state-owned firms (SOEs), such as Pakistan Steel Mills and Pakistan International Airlines.

To allow the government to sell PIA’s fifty-one percent of the company, the Privatisation Commission called for bids from interested parties in April.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

Supreme Court halts PHC and ECP decisions regarding reserved seats

Published

on

By

On Monday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court (PHC) were suspended by the Supreme Court, even as they accepted the plea of the Sunni Ittehad Council for a hearing. The ECP had decided to award the reserved seats of SIC to other political parties.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the people’s mandate should be appropriately represented in the Parliament as the proceedings resumed following a short interim.

Let me explain what the Election Commission has truly done, stated the Council of the ECP. We only dispersed the reserved seats once. No new distribution of them was made.

The court, Justice Shah said, was more interested in following the Constitution than in what the Election Commission had done. Giving other parties more seats isn’t it against the idea of proportionality, Justice Shah questioned.

Seats were unfairly awarded to other parties, according to Justice Athar Minallah. Even after losing the electoral symbol, a party could still run for office, according to his observation.

In order to determine whether the case would be handled by the same bench or a larger bench would be established to hear it, the Supreme Court then forwarded the reserved seat subject to the Judges Committee.

The Pakistani Election Commission received applications from the opposing parties on March 4 and decided to utilise a proportional representation process to assign seats to political parties based on the number of seats each party won. This meant that seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain empty.

The PTI-backed SIC lost 77 reserved seats as a result of the development, including two women’s seats in the Sindh Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the National Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, and twenty-seven women’s seats in the Punjab Assembly; all totaling twenty-three seats.

Additionally, pleas for women’s and minorities’ reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were denied by the Peshawar High Court.In its challenge, the party said that SIC should not have been granted reserved seats for women and minorities by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Previous steps

In a case involving the refusal to provide the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats, the appeal court had previously dismissed the federal government’s challenge to the three-member bench.

An appeal for reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council is being heard by a three-judge panel led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah.

The federal government asked the court to form a larger bench so that more people could hear the matter when the hearing got underway. Adviser General Aamir Rahman, speaking for the federal government, stated that the appeals could only be heard by a larger bench. But the objection on the bench was dismissed by the court.

Situated on reserved seats, the female parliamentarians expressed disapproval of the bench as well. Under the Practice and Procedures Act, only a five-member bench could hear the issue, according to the attorney for the female parliamentarians. The dispute involved the interpretation of Article 51 of the Constitution.

Under Article 185 of the Constitution, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the current case was being handled as an appeal. Under Article 184/3, the current case was not filed. Court decisions on the admissibility of appeals were left up to the court, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

In addition, he said, a larger bench may be assembled to hear the case if it was determined that the case could be maintained.

Arguments made by Faisal Siddiqui the Advocate

Prominent Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer Faisal Siddiqui began putting forth the points. Following the February 8 general elections, Siddiqui announced that PTI’s returned candidates became members of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

There were still seven candidates in the National Assembly who had independent status, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
If PTI was a registered political party, Justice Athar Minallah questioned.

Siddiqui, the advocate, confirmed that PTI was a legally recognised political party. Although it wasn’t present during the election, Justice Shah noted that it was a registered political party.

Can you tell me how many days independent members have to join a party? said Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. A political party must be joined by independent members of the National Assembly within three days, according to Siddiqui. Justice Minallah asked,

“Will candidates of a political party forfeit their right to represent if the party lacks an electoral symbol?” A political party might transform into a parliamentary party by running for office, Siddiqui informed the court.

There is also the case where a political party holds elections yet does not allow its successful candidates to leave. What mechanism is used to allocate reserved seats among political parties, Justice Shah inquired?

Justice Shah enquired, “Will the political party take reserved seats according to the number of seats won or can it take more? According to Siddiqui, no political party is allowed to have more reserved seats than their share.

After upon, the Supreme Court quickly postponed the case hearing till 11:30 while summoning Election Commission representatives with documentation.

Continue Reading

Trending