Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Wednesday said that former prime minister Imran Khan could have raised objections on amendments in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws in the National Assembly instead of Supreme Court. Justice Shah is a part of the three-member Supreme Court bench – also comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan – that took up Imran’s plea, which claims the new NAB laws are and “violation of fundamental rights”. During the hearing, Justice Shah said that the public had trusted Imran by electing him a member of the National Assembly. “Why did he leave the assembly without the wish of the people of his constituency?” he inquired, adding that the PTI chief could have raised his objections against the NAB ordinance in the parliament if he had stayed there. The remarks came in response to Imran Khan s lawyer Khawaja Haris argument that the elected representatives of the people could only approach the courts if the works are not done in the respective constituencies. “Your petitioner has brought the [NAB] amendments to court but he could have trusted the parliament and stayed in it,” Justice Shah remarked. At this, Haris replied that the government gets the laws passed on the basis of its majority. Imran Khan’s counsel Khawaja Haris said the new amendments had rendered the accountability law ineffective. In the past, the apex court had declared the corruption cancer for the country, he added.
He said the law for the public office holders had been the same since 1949. Holding a public office was a sacred responsibility and corruption could not be tolerated, he added. Justice Mansoor said the court could not do anything if the parliament had abolished a law. He asked the counsel whether the court had ever restored a repealed law before. Kjawaja Haris said that in 1990, the court had restored a repealed law. Chief Justice Bandial remarked that the parliament was only submissive to the Constitution and the Shariah. Justice Ijaz accountability was a fundamental principle of Islam.
Khawaja Haris said important changes had been made in the accountability laws regarding plea bargains. Those who did not pay installments of the plea bargain had been facilitated under the new amended law, he added. He said earlier, action was taken against those who failed to pay the plea bargains. After the amendment, the plea bargain of the non-payer would expire, he added.
He said if the corruption case was about an amount of less than Rs 50 million, then the charges against the accused would be automatically removed under the amended law, and they could also claim the amount of plea bargain deposited, partially or fully. The chief justice remarked the state would have to pay billions of rupees on that count. Justice Mansoor asked whether taking money from an accused under pressure was correct. Khawaja Haris responded that the plea bargain was only approved by the accountability court. An if an accused was pressured for the plea bargain, then he could let the court know in that regard, he added. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Thursday.
