Politicians benefiting from NAB law can be rejected in polls: SC judge

ISLAMABAD: Questio­ning the bonafides of the petitioner, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Friday said sometimes he felt tired of pushing too hard to find errors in the amendment made to the National Account­ability Ordinance (NAO).

If someone believes that the amendment is tailored to benefit certain politicians and their family members, then the only available remedy is to throw them out in the elections and elect a new parliament to bring amendments for refining the NAB law, he said.

Justice Shah, a member of the three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing challenges to the August 2022 amendments to the NAO by former prime minister Imran Khan, said that with elections around the corner, the only option seems to be waiting for the new parliament, which could look at the law and bring improvements.

Let the judiciary and parliament do their respective jobs, as one of the salient features of the Constitution is to let the democracy function, he emphasised.

CJP acknowledges need to address breaches of fundamental rights

He regretted that the petitioner spoke of trusteeship but violated this concept himself by leaving his constituency unrepresented when he should have vacated it by resigning his NA seat to be replaced by someone else.

Earlier, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, who headed the bench, wanted to wrap up the 52nd hearing in the NAB case but had to adjourn it until Tuesday after Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman requested the court to give half an hour audience to Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan.

Justice Shah’s observation came during the hearing when senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed on behalf of the petitioner argued that to sit or not to give importance to the parliament was a political decision of his client and that amendments in the accountability law had burdened the prosecution to establish that assets in the possession of the accused were derived from corrupt means.

“I have an issue with the bonafides of the petitioner,” retorted Justice Shah, saying that keeping the constituency unrepresented means tearing down the entire democratic system.

When CJP Bandial observed that the court can even initiate suo motu on a simple letter, Justice Shah observed that before taking any action, the court should determine the motive and identity of the letter’s author.

The CJP, however, endorsed what was troubling Justice Shah’s mind by acknowledging that we unfortunately have to craft breach of fundamental rights since no direct violation of such rights have been mentioned in the petition, moved under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, though it leads to “penumbra rights”, adding that poor criminal administration made societies unsafe.

After all, people choose their representatives in the elections to be governed for a purpose, the CJP emphasised.

But the CJP regretted that people were leaving the country as economic opportunities were diminishing since corrupt practices encourage an industry — the industry of economic enclave for politically strong persons that is not open to competition.

There are several people in this economy, who were roaming freely and owned tainted money from criminal activities like drugs, etc. And this system of shrouding and shielding is only meant to protect such money, the CJP regretted.

He asked the petitioner that he has to connect his pleading in a way to establish the concept of state responsibility to provide a just and fair society where the life and properties of people were protected, and where criminals should not be allowed to roam about free.

The CJP noted that the blatant misuse of NAB law in the past has resulted in giving exemptions to the certain class under the amended NAB law. That is why governments had to provide protection to institutions and public servants only to keep the affairs of the state running.

But this created lack of oversight, the CJP regretted, emphasising that the most important office under the Constitution was that of the Accountant General Pakistan — an office which enjoys the authority even to look at the accounts and procedural irregularities of the provinces. This all revolves around the governance issue, he regretted.

While referring to immunities created under the amended law, CJP equated this tendency with that of handing down pardon to individuals accused of corruption.

Meanwhile, NAB furnished an updated report before the Supreme Court, highlighting the return of corruption references from Jan 1, 2023 till date. Prominent among the list is former president Asif Ali Zardari in the Park Lane case, against whom the reference was returned by the accountability court due to lack of jurisdiction, with directions to the staff of the court to hand over the reference books.

Likewise, the case of former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi in the LNG case was transferred or referred to the special judge (central) Islamabad for further proceedings. The case against Hussain Lawai was transferred to the special court (offences in banks) Karachi for further proceedings. Khawaja Abdul Ghani Majeed was referred to the Anti-Corruption Court Karachi (Malir) for further proceedings.