During the hearing in the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the request of Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the NAB amendments, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial has said in his remarks that the NAB references of some personalities have been returned on record till May.
A 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Hassan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah are part of this bench.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Khawaja Haris whether he has read the NAB report. NAB has given the reasons for the references returned till May, the reasons for the return of the reference indicate which side the law is leaning towards, the references of which persons have been returned till May, all the references have come on record, in Section 23 of the NAB Law. One amendment came in May and the other in June. References returned before May are still with NAB. Who will answer these questions on behalf of NAB?
Chairman PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said that many pending cases have been returned after the amendments.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial inquired whether there is any clause in these amendments under which the cases should be sent to other forums. After these amendments, much of NAB’s work has ended.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris replied that under the amendments, if a case is made, the cases will be sent to other forums after review.
The Chief Justice inquired whether NAB has any legal authority to send cases to other forums.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris replied that NAB does not have the authority to deal with these cases after the amendments, NAB also has no legal authority to send the cases to other institutions.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that it is not the case that the cases are over with NAB and the accused go home. If there is a murder in the NAB office, will the matter not go to the relevant forum? There is no need of law to send the cases to other forums, the cases that have been made will go to some forum, they are not getting the authority to send the cases to other forums, they will ask NAB about it.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that so far all the people have gone home due to the return of NAB cases, it was also said that the NAB amendments are the same which were proposed during the PTI regime.
The Chief Justice said that I have nothing to do with your conduct but with basic human rights.
Chairman PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said that it was said that I have personally benefited from the NAB amendments. The defense is easy under the amendments, but they have told NAB that they will not take advantage, the statement submitted to NAB is also a part of the court record.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the pending investigations and inquiries have been put under cold storage after the amendments, the rights of the people will be directly affected until the mechanism of transfer of investigations is made.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the elected representatives also have to go through the 62-1FK test, the elected representatives exercise their powers as trustees.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that there is no immunity for the judges of the Supreme Court in the NAB law, under Article 209 only a judge can be dismissed and recovery is not possible.
Lawyer Khawaja Haris replied that NAB should take action if the judge is dismissed.
The Chief Justice said that if the state assets are subject to corruption, smuggling or illegal transfer of capital, all these should be dealt with. It is disappointing that these crimes are not clearly defined in the law. It is the responsibility of the state to make the people happy and safe. There is a responsibility.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that military officers have been exempted from NAB law.
Chairman PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said that he did not challenge the amendment regarding military officers, there are punishments against military officers for corruption in the Army Act.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that punishments are also available against civil officers and public officials.
Chairman PTI’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said that civil service law only has departmental action, not criminal punishment for corruption.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether a corrupt army officer does not have a direct relationship with the public. If an army officer is the head of an institution other than the army, the NAB comes under the law. Wouldn’t it be strange if the state should ask why the punishment was reduced on the amendments of the parliament?
The Chief Justice said that the petitioner’s case is that the elements of the offense have been changed, can the offenses be eliminated by retroactive application of the NAB amendments? After all, what is the purpose of applying the law from the past? The purpose of this was that the convicted criminal would say to end my sentence and return the money.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked whether Parliament does not have the power to enact legislation from the past. Can the Supreme Court tell the Parliament that you made a law based on cunning and malice? If the Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule the legislation of the Parliament, then it will have to go along with it.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the Parliament is not allowed to do everything, the Parliament cannot end the crime by making a law of application from the past, in such a case the criminal who was convicted in 1985 will come and say that my punishment is no more and re-trial. .
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired as to which clause of the Constitution prevents the Parliament from enacting retroactive legislation?
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that it could have been said that the law would be applied from the past but the cases that were dealt with would not be opened. is Can a vague law stand?
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah then raised the question that if I take the Chief Justice’s question forward, can the Supreme Court send the laws back to the Parliament?
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that Parliament is very supreme, if the Parliament is requested to reconsider the laws, then what will happen in the interim? If the court found the law to be correct, should it be sent back to Parliament?
Justice Ijazul Hassan asked how the amended law can be sent to Parliament for reconsideration.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the court itself can look at the law if the fundamental rights have been affected, tell which fundamental right has been affected by the NAB amendments?
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that corruption in public property affects the fundamental right of every citizen of the country.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that the Supreme Court heard the Haris corruption case under its original jurisdiction, the Haris case was a case of corruption and it was heard under the category of fundamental rights.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that I had asked about the accountability of judges and bureaucrats.
#NAB #references #personalities #returned #Chief #Justice
**Interview with Legal Analyst, Dr. Ayesha Malik, on Recent Supreme Court Hearing Regarding NAB Amendments**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Dr. Malik. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has recently held a hearing regarding the NAB amendments and their implications, especially for the Chairman of PTI. What were some of the key points discussed during the hearing?
**Dr. Ayesha Malik:** Thank you for having me. One of the key points discussed was the Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s inquiry about the NAB report and which references had been returned. The Chief Justice emphasized that the information about cases returned till May would affect the legal landscape and influence how these amendments are perceived in terms of accountability and transparency in governance.
**Interviewer:** Chief Justice Bandial also raised concerns about whether the NAB had the authority to send cases to other forums after the amendments. What is your interpretation of this?
**Dr. Malik:** That’s correct. The Chief Justice questioned the legal basis for NAB’s authority to transfer cases elsewhere given the new amendments. The lawyer representing PTI, Khawaja Haris, argued that under the amendments, NAB’s ability to handle these cases was significantly curtailed. This highlights concerns about the effectiveness of the NAB in tackling corruption after these legislative changes.
**Interviewer:** There was also mention of whether the amendments could allow for judicial immunity for actions taken by NAB against certain officials, particularly military officers. What are your thoughts on this?
**Dr. Malik:** This aspect raises important questions about accountability and the rule of law. The acknowledgment that military officers are exempt from NAB law under the recent amendments puts a spotlight on selective accountability, particularly as Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that public service and military ranks can intersect in ways that laymen may not comprehend. The legality of this exemption continues to stir discussions about equal treatment under law.
**Interviewer:** The Chief Justice and the other Justices expressed concerns regarding the retroactive application of these amendments. Why is this a significant point?
**Dr. Malik:** Retroactive application of laws is a contentious issue because it can erode public trust in the judiciary and legislative bodies. The Justices were cautious of allowing amendments that could absolve previously convicted individuals or alter the terms of existing laws in a way that benefits certain defendants post-factum. The rule of law is anchored by principles of fairness and consistency, and any tinkering with this could set a worrying precedent.
**Interviewer:** how do you foresee the implications of this hearing on NAB’s future operations and ongoing cases?
**Dr. Malik:** The hearing undoubtedly raises more questions than answers regarding NAB’s operational capacity and accountability post-amendments. There could be significant impacts on pending investigations, as highlighted by the Justices’ concerns about public rights being at stake. The National Accountability Bureau may need to reassess its strategies and perhaps push for clarity on its legal authority, or risk losing effectiveness altogether in its mission to combat corruption.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insightful analysis, Dr. Malik. It will certainly be interesting to see how this situation unfolds in the coming weeks.
**Dr. Malik:** Thank you for having me; I look forward to discussing the outcomes as they develop.
