In a landmark 2-1 verdict, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has approved Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments made to the country’s accountability laws during the tenure of the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government. The three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, with Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Ijazul Ahsan, delivered this significant decision, which has far-reaching implications for Pakistan’s political landscape.
Background
The legal battle centered on amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, significantly impacting the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and its jurisdiction. These amendments, enacted during the PDM-led government’s term, included changes to the NAB chairman’s term, the scope of NAB’s authority over regulatory bodies, and timelines for case resolution in accountability courts.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court’s verdict, delivered just before Chief Justice Bandial’s retirement, has several crucial aspects:
- Restoration of Graft Cases: The majority decision of the Supreme Court has restored graft cases against public office holders that were previously closed following the amendments. This move has implications for political leaders from various parties and public officeholders facing corruption charges.
- Striking Down Amendments: The apex court struck down specific amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. These amendments, deemed unconstitutional, profoundly impacted NAB’s functioning.
- Admissibility of Khan’s Petition: The court declared Khan’s petition challenging the NAB amendments admissible, recognizing the importance of addressing constitutional concerns raised by the amendments.
- Impact on Political Bigwigs: The verdict’s consequences are significant, implying that references against prominent political figures will return to accountability courts. Notable cases include the Toshakhana reference against Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, Yousuf Raza Gilani, the LNG reference against Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, and the rental power reference against Raja Pervez Ashraf.
- Return of Records: The court ordered NAB to return all records related to cases closed due to the amendments to the relevant courts within seven days, facilitating the revival of these cases.
- Constitutional Rights: The verdict emphasized that the NAB amendments under scrutiny affected the constitutional rights of the public, as outlined in the Pakistani Constitution.
Dissenting Note
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah issued a dissenting note in the NAB amendments case, highlighting the complexity and differing perspectives surrounding these legal changes.
NAB Amendments
The NAB amendments introduced a series of changes, including reducing the NAB chairman’s term from four years to three years and removing regulatory bodies from the NAB’s jurisdiction. Additionally, the amendments imposed three years for judges in accountability courts. They mandated that cases be resolved within one year.
Imran Khan’s Challenge
Imran Khan’s petition argued that these amendments were unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights enshrined in the Pakistani Constitution. The petition specifically targeted amendments to various sections of the NAB law, contending that they ran counter to Articles 9, 14, 19, 24, and 25, which protect rights related to due process, freedom, and protection against self-incrimination.
Forming a unique three-member bench in response to Khan’s plea initiated a legal process culminating in this pivotal Supreme Court decision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict favoring Imran Khan’s challenge to the NAB amendments has stirred significant political and legal debates in Pakistan. It underscores the judiciary’s critical role in upholding constitutional rights and maintaining the balance between accountability and individual liberties.
As corruption cases against prominent politicians and public officeholders are set to be revived, the decision could reshape Pakistan’s political landscape in the lead-up to future elections. Additionally, it serves as a reminder of the importance of crafting legislation that respects constitutional principles while addressing issues of national accountability.