Live Updates: NAB amendments case: 'Whether we break law or army, it's the same thing': CJP
As Imran Khan's photograph from video link goes viral on social media, security tightened outside Supreme CourtSC restores NAB amendments, accepts govt intra-court appeal
The Supreme Court has restored the amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, approving the federal government's intra-court appeal against the nullification of the amendments.
The verdict, delivered by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, overturns the prior decision of a two-member bench that had invalidated the amendments.
The court ruled unanimously, with chief justice Isa delivering the verdict. The Supreme Court stated that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Founder Imran Khan failed to prove that the amendments to the NAB ordinance were unconstitutional, declaring that constitutional institutions should respect each other's mandates.
"The chief justice and Supreme Court judges are not the gatekeepers of parliament," the judgement noted.
Also Read: Govt challenges SC decision nullifying NAB law amendments
The CJP also said that the five-member bench, which also included Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, delivered a consensus decision to restore the amendments. He said Justice Minallah and Justice Rizvi had penned additional notes to the main ruling.
According to the judgement, Justice Minallah restored the amendments on the appeals of private suspects, while also noting that the federal government had no standing to file an intra-court appeal, as only the aggrieved party has the right to do so.
Justice Rizvi said he would provide separate reasons for supporting the restoration of the amendments.
The Supreme Court noted that legislation of parliament should not be declared null and void without a reason, which also did not mean that the legislation should not be annulled even if it is against the Constitution. "If a legislation is against the Constitution, the court can declare it null and void," the SC declared.
Also Read: SC reserves verdict on govt’s appeals against NAB amendments
On June 6, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on the government’s intra-court appeals challenging the annulment of the amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) rules. A five-member larger bench, headed by CJP Isa, had heard the case, with proceedings conducted via video link.
During the hearing, judicial assistant Farooq H Naik presented his written submissions. CJP Isa inquired if Naik supported the decision, to which Naik mentioned supporting Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's note.
PTI Founder Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Haris addressed the court, highlighting the violation of fundamental rights in the main case. Lawyer Khawaja Haris emphasized that the NAB amendments infringed upon articles 9, 14, 25, and 24 of the Constitution.
Also Read: SC declares Imran Khan's plea against NAB amendments 'admissible'
Former prime minister Imran Khan had stated that the NAB amendments would make things easier for him, but emphasized that the country's bankruptcy must be addressed. Khan, who appeared via video link, suggested that the Supreme Court appoint the NAB chairman, citing that the bureau was not under his control even during his tenure. He also referred to the judiciary as the "third umpire".
Justice Athar Minallah had pointed out that there seemed to be no justification for Imran Khan to want to revoke the amendments. He asked whether Khan had considered his note regarding the NAB and what steps he had taken.
The PTI founder expressed frustration, stating, "After what NAB did to me in just five days, its credibility is questionable."
SC reserves verdict on govt’s appeals against NAB amendments
The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Thursday reserved verdict on the government’s appeals challenging the annulment of the amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) rules.
A 5-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case, with proceedings conducted via video link.
During the hearing, judicial assistant Farooq H. Naik presented his written submissions. Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa inquired if Naik supported the decision, to which Naik mentioned supporting Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's note.
Responding to queries, Naik clarified that while his position aligned with Makhdoom Ali Khan’s arguments, his submissions were based on his own points and observations on the Supreme Court decision.
Following Naik, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Haris addressed the court, highlighting the violation of fundamental rights in the main case. Lawyer Khawaja Haris emphasized that the NAB amendments infringed upon Article 9, 14, 25, and 24 of the constitution.
"NAB amendments will benefit me, but country’s bankruptcy must end"
Former Prime Minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan stated that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments will make things easier for him, but emphasized that the country's bankruptcy must be addressed.
He made these remarks during a Supreme Court hearing on the government's appeals against declaring the NAB amendments null and void.
Khan, who appeared via video link, suggested that the Supreme Court should appoint the NAB Chairman, citing that the bureau was not under his control even during his tenure. He also referred to the judiciary as the "Third Umpire".
Imran Khan’s arguments
During the hearing, Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa asked the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), if he had any additional points to make regarding the case. Khan replied, “I can hear you,” and began his arguments.
Khan expressed confusion over the court’s previous remark about him scoring political points, stating, “I didn't understand what political point scoring was done?” He also mentioned that the live broadcast of the case was not allowed due to a character assassination attempt.
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa responded, “Judges don't explain their decisions, you can file a revision.”
Khan continued, “I oppose the government’s appeal in the NAB amendment case. If the amendments are made, it will be my loss. My watch, worth 2 crore rupees, was shown to be worth 3 billion rupees.”
He suggested that the Supreme Court should appoint the NAB chairman, citing that even during his tenure, NAB was not under his control. He emphasized that the democratic system in Britain is based on ethics, rule of law, and accountability.
Form 47
During the court session, Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned Imran Khan about Parliament's authority to amend, to which he responded that the government which came into power through Form 47 cannot make amendments.
Justice Athar Minullah pointed out that there seemed to be no justification for Mr. Imran Khan to revoke these amendments. He asked whether Imran Khan had considered his note regarding NAB and what steps he had taken. Would there be credibility?
PTI's founder expressed frustration, stating, "After what NAB did to me in just 5 days, credibility is questionable."
Imran Khan shows maturity after being jailed: Justice Mandokhel
Justice Jamal Mandokhel commented on Imran Khan's maturity post-jail time, to which Imran Khan attributed his entry into politics to the system's condition 27 years ago. He emphasized on stopping billions of dollars from leaving poor countries, stating his current ordeal with NAB.
The court questioned if NAB would continue its current practices. Imran Khan suggested improving NAB and establishing a special institution to combat corruption.
During the hearing, Justice Athar Minullah reminded Imran Khan about the appointment issue of Chief Election Commissioner and members. Imran Khan, being in jail, expressed concerns that the amendment would benefit him personally but harm the country financially. He also mentioned money flowing out of the country as per Dubai leaks.
Your words scare me, says Justice Jamal Mandokhel
Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that Imran Khan’s words were also frightening him, indicating the gravity of the situation. He urged Imran Khan to resolve the issues with fellow politicians, stating that in a crisis, one should not worry about distinctions but focus on extinguishing the fire first.
The PTI founder pointed out that in India, Arvind Kejriwal was released and allowed to contest elections despite his sentence being suspended.
Justice Mandokhel questioned who was responsible for creating the political system. Justice Athar Minullah expressed that people have high hopes for Imran Khan despite his imprisonment. Imran Khan responded that everyone is looking to the judiciary, and martial law has been declared in Pakistan.
He warned that any untoward event would raise suspicions about Imran Khan, emphasizing the mutual scrutiny between the judiciary and the PTI founder.
People have high hopes from you: Justice Athar Minallah
Justice Athar Minallah stated that, despite Imran Khan's imprisonment, people have high hopes for him. Imran Khan responded, “If I speak from the heart, we are all looking at you. Martial law has been declared in Pakistan.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhel warned, “If anything happens, we will be suspicious of you. We are looking at you, and you are looking at us.”
Cipher Case Reference
During the hearing, the PTI founder attempted to mention the cipher case, but Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa intervened, noting that an appeal related to the cipher case might come before the court. Imran Khan clarified, “I am not talking about the pending case.”
Dialogue solves many things, Chief Justice
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that while the court was not attempting to delve into politics, they were open to discussions, noting that dialogue can resolve many issues.
Justice Athar Minullah added that Mr. Farooq Naik also holds responsibility in this matter. "We are the defenders of fundamental rights, but you politicians must also play your part," he stated. Farooq H. Naik responded, "We have always kept our doors open."
Indignation at NAB for Taking Credit in Rekodic Recovery
During the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed anger towards NAB for taking credit for the Rekodic recovery. He remarked that NAB prosecutors should be ashamed and should not appear before this court in the future.
Judgment Reserved
After the completion of arguments, the court reserved its decision on the government's appeals against the nullification of the NAB amendments.
Order of Today's Hearing
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa wrote the order for today's hearing, noting that NAB's claim of recovering $10 billion was surprising. He emphasized that institutions should not submit false documents. The court instructed the Chairman NAB and Prosecutor General to present the original recovery and budget reports. Additionally, the court requested the NAB's annual budget for the last 10 years.
The Chief Justice asked Imran Khan if he had anything further to add. Imran Khan replied with a thank you and had no additional comments.
The Supreme Court granted one week's time for the submission of written arguments.
SC cites potential political misuse in verdict to stop live-streaming NAB laws case
The Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday announced that its decision to halt the live-streaming of proceedings in the case of intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the court's September 15 majority judgment, which nullified amendments to the anti-graft laws, was driven by concerns over potential political misuse of the facility.
The amendments in question were made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 by the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government in 2022. These changes included reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, limiting NAB's jurisdiction to cases involving over Rs500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to relevant authorities.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan had challenged the amendments, alleging they were designed to benefit influential accused persons and legitimize corruption. He argued that the amendments aimed to scrap corruption cases against high-ranking officials and allow convicted public office-holders to have their convictions overturned.
After 53 hearings, the SC reserved its verdict on September 5, 2023, and on September 15, it restored corruption cases against public office holders that were withdrawn following the amendments, declaring Imran's plea maintainable.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa hinted during an October 31, 2023, hearing that the proceedings might need to be restarted if the counsel presented a solid case. Despite this, the court refused to stay proceedings in ongoing corruption cases but restrained trial courts from issuing final orders until the next hearing.
The SC was handling multiple ICAs from the federal government and a private citizen, Zuhair Ahmed Siddiqui, accused in a corruption case. Notices were issued to respondent Imran, currently incarcerated, through the jail superintendent.
On May 14, CJP Isa instructed the government to ensure video link arrangements for Imran to participate in the proceedings, but during the May 16 hearing, Imran, appearing via video link, did not get a chance to speak. The hearing was not broadcast live, unlike the May 14 hearing, with reasons unclear at the time.
In the May 30 hearing, the bench, led by CJP Isa and including Justices Athar Minallah, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, decided in a 4:1 ruling not to live-stream the proceedings, with Justice Minallah dissenting. This decision was in response to an application by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general (AG) to live-stream the proceedings.
The court's written order explained the decision, citing the possibility of misuse or exploitation for personal or political purposes, grandstanding, and commenting on unrelated matters, which could affect the administration of justice and public perception.
The order emphasized that live-streaming is reserved for cases of public interest and noted that the public has shown little interest in the sustainability of the NAO amendments. It highlighted that neither Imran nor the KP government had previously requested live-streaming during the 53 hearings.
The court concluded that requests for live-streaming fall within its exclusive domain and will be considered based on the merits of each case.
NAB amendments case: PTI founder requests personal appearance in Supreme Court
In an important development, Imran Khan, the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), currently detained in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail, has submitted a written request to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, seeking permission to appear in person for the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the NAB amendments case.
The PTI founder’s application was delivered through the jail administration and personally signed by him. This move underscores his determination to present his case directly before the court.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of the NAB amendment case for May 30.
On May 16, the hearing on the intra-court appeal against the Supreme Court's decision regarding the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments had been deferred for an indefinite period.
Former prime minister Imran Khan, one of the main parties in the case, appeared from Adiala Jail through a video link.
A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case. Unlike many previous proceedings in significant cases, Thursday's hearing was not broadcasted live on TV and social media channels.
The hearing
Justice Athar Minallah asked if the application was approved for hearing in the high court. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied in the positive. The court then sought the high court's order of the hearing on NAB amendments case.
Read Also: NAB Amendments Case: Everything You Need To Know About The Case
Advocate Khan told the court on being asked that a total of 53 hearings have been held in the main case.
The CJP asked how was the case being heard in the apex court while being heard in the high court also. "Did the court answer this question in its judgment of the main case?" he asked.
Makhdoom Ali Khan replied in the affirmative and then read out the relevant paragraphs of the Supreme Court decision.
“Why did the main case take so long?” the CJP asked.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked how long it took to create the entire NAB ordinance. The attorney general told the court that former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf assumed power on October 12, and introduced the NAB Ordinance in December. Musharraf made the entire ordinance in less than two months, he added.
Advocate Khan said initially, a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court was formed on the issue of general elections. Later, two of the judges recused and said the case was not maintainable.
“Even if a judge expresses his opinion in this case, he will remain a part of the bench,” the CJP remarked.
Justice Minallah said there was another point regarding the election case, adding that all the judges had said elections must be held in 90 days. However, the decision was not implemented, he remarked.
He further said that in 2023, the election case was declared inadmissible by two of the judges over similar reasons. “We said that there should be no interference in the case pending in the high court,” Justice Minallah said.
If the decision of the Lahore High Court had been implemented, then the elections would have been held on time, he said further. “An intra court order was not issued against the decision given by the Lahore High Court,” he further said.
On being asked about the order of the SC on elections, Advocate Khan said the order was probably not issued because of the disagreement on that point.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said there was a difference of opinion if seven judges should sign the order or five. The CJP said a judgement is one in which there is an order of the court.
The CJP looked at Justice Minallah and smiled, saying when the two of them sat on the bench, they got the elections conducted in 12 days. “Fortunately or unfortunately, I was not on the bench you are talking about,” CJP Isa remarked.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said they raised the issue of the case being inadmissible in court.
The CJP expressed indignation at the disturbances in the courtroom and told to leave whoever wanted to talk.
Meanwhile, Imran Khan’s image was removed from the screen showing him appearing through the video link.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said the Supreme Court cannot hear a petition pending in the high court, adding the NAB amendment case was also not maintainable in the Supreme Court.
After Justice Minallah and Justice Mandokhel gave some instructions to the court staff, the video of Imran Khan once again appeared on the screen inside the courtroom.
Advocate Khan said that after completing the Practice and Procedure Case, the NAB amendment case was started to be heard.
“Our position in the court was that no law can be suspended,” Makhdoom Ali Khan said, adding that it was suspended at the bill level in the Practice and Procedure case.
Justice Mandokhel asked if suspending the law at the level of the bill was akin to suspending the parliamentary proceedings. CJP Isa said if that was so, then why should parliament not be suspended.
“Whether we break the law or the army does so, it is the same thing,” the chief justice remarked, asking if "we can ever" progress as a country.
“Isn't it exploitation to continue hearing other cases by suspending a law and forming a bench against it?” CJP Isa.
Justice Minallah asked if an appeal could be filed by the aggrieved party or anyone? “How is the government an affected party in this case?” he asked further, adding that under the Practice and Procedure Act, an appeal could be filed only by the aggrieved person.
Justice Mandokhel said not only the affected person, but the law says the affected party can also file an appeal.
He further asked if a party member can vote against the party's decision on a bill. The CJP replied that there was a review petition on this matter. Justice Minallah said a strong parliament, an independent judiciary, and a fearless leader were essential against corruption.
CJP Isa said if ordinances had to be introduced, then parliament should be shut down. "Through an ordinance, you impose the will of one person on the whole nation. Isn't this against democracy? Shouldn't the president write detailed reasons for the ordinance?" he asked.
Justice Minallah then called Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan to the rostrum, and remarked, "You have started threatening the judges through a proxy? Will you make footballs out of turbans?"
The AGP replied that these remarks were insulting and called Senator Faisal Vawda's press conference disrespectful. "All this comes under contempt," he added. Justice Minallah told him he, as the attorney general, had powers in this regard.
The hearing on the intra-court appeals against the NAB amendments verdict was postponed indefinitely. The court noted that the next hearing would be held on the availability of the bench. The court also issued instructions to present Imran Khan on video link in the next hearing as well.
“I am not available next week,” Chief Justice Isa said, and asked Khawaja Haris if he was going anywhere. The lawyer replied in the negative, saying: No, I am here, I don't want to go anywhere.”
Justice Minallah said the PTI founder was also not going anywhere from jail, as his remarks evoked laughter in the courtroom.
At this, PTI leader Ali Muhammad Khan, sitting at the back of the room, shouted: “He will go straight from the jail to the Prime Minister House.”
Imran Khan's photograph
Meanwhile, after the photograph of PTI Founder Imran Khan went viral on social media, security was tightened outside the Supreme Court, as more officers were deployed. The SSP (security) himself reached outside the courtroom, and everyone entering the courtroom was being searched.
No unauthorized person was allowed to enter the courtroom.
A lawyer appeared on the rostrum and said the proceedings were not being broadcast live. CJP Isa told the lawyer to sit down, as they were hearing arguments. The lawyer argued that he just wanted to bring it to his notice. The CJP insisted the lawyer sit down.
Earlier, arrangements for the video link appearance of Imran Khan in Courtroom No 1 had been completed, while a video link was also arranged from Adiala Jail. Entry into Courtroom No.1 was restricted to the relevant people only.
Led by former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, the Supreme Court had accepted an appeal of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Founder Imran Khan, which subsequently deemed the NAB amendments introduced by the PDM coalition government invalid.
Challenging the verdict, the federal government promptly filed an appeal under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. The first hearing into the intra-court appeal was held in October last year, and the second just two days ago.
In the intra-court appeal, the government had also made Imran Khan a party. In response to the Supreme Court's notice asking what he would like to say, the former premier expressed his intent to present his case himself.
At the last hearing, the SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, granted him permission to deliver his statement via video link.
SC takes sou motu notice of Faisal Vawda's press conference
The Supreme Court of Pakistan took notice of the press conference of ‘independent’ Senator Faisal Vawda.
Faisal Vawda's press conference also came under discussion during the hearing of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments case in the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP).
The apex court led by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa will hear the case tomorrow (Friday).
Justice Irfan Saadat and Justice Naeem Akhter will be part of the division bench headed by the CJP. The SC registrar fixed the case hearing before the Bench-1 of the apex court.
Supreme Court Registrar issued cause list and fixed the case number 6/2024 for hearing on Friday.
Read more: Vawda questions 'double standards' on dual citizenship of judges
Senator Faisal Vawda said that there has become a trend of making baseless accusations against agencies and sensitive institutions while calling for concrete evidence to be presented.
Vawda emphasized that the growing public unrest must be addressed with facts rather than allegations. He was addressing a press conference at the National Press Club in Islamabad on Wednesday.
“Enough is enough,” Vawda declared, warning that continued unfounded claims could lead to severe repercussions. “If they throw their turbans, we will make a football out of their turbans. If you give respect, you will get respect,” Vawda said.
Vawda underscored the importance of maintaining integrity, particularly among public representatives and the judiciary. He questioned the dual citizenship of judges, arguing that if public representatives cannot hold dual citizenship, neither should judges.
The Senator pointed out that Justice Athar Minullah is reputed for his transparency and integrity, noting that Minullah does not meet anyone in secret or issue decisions merely for publicity. Furthermore, Vawda mentioned his letter to the registrar's office seeking information on Justice Babar Sattar, to which he has yet to receive a response.
Senator Vawda's call to action is clear of providing evidence of any alleged interference, and he will stand with those who do.
SC investigates viral photo of Imran Khan during NAB case hearing
The Supreme Court administration has launched an investigation into the unauthorized dissemination of a photo featuring PTI founder Imran Khan during his appearance via video link from Adiala Jail in the NAB amendments case.
The image gained traction on social media platforms, prompting the court to take action.
Later, the authorities found out who had leaked the viral photograph. After analysing the CCTV, it was found out that the picture was taken by a young lawyer, according to sources.
Violating courtroom rules, the circulation of the photo has prompted the court to consider legal action against the culprit.
As a consequence of the viral photo, adjustments have been made, reducing the size of the video feed featuring Imran Khan during court proceedings.
Everything you need to know about NAB amendments case
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan appeared before court in intra-court appeal against the Supreme Court's decision regarding the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments, one of the main parties in the case, appearing from Adiala Jail through a video link.
A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case. Unlike many previous proceedings in significant cases, Thursday's hearing was not aired live on TV and social media channels.
NAB amendment case
On October 17th of the previous year, the federal government took an important step by filing an appeal against the decision that nullified the amendments made to the NAB (National Accountability Bureau) Act. The appeal sought to reverse the ruling that declared the NAB amendments void.
The appeal named several parties, including the federation, NAB, and the Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). This legal action came in response to the decision handed down regarding the NAB amendments.
Adding to the legal complexity, petitioner Zubair Ahmed Siddiqui filed an appeal against the decision on the NAB amendments under the Practice and Procedure Law. Siddiqui's appeal aimed to challenge the ruling and urged for the reinstatement of the amendments nullified by the court.
Imran Khan Challenges NAB Amendments
The amendments to the NAB Act were challenged by the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Imran Khan, during the tenure of the former Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in 2022. The matter was heard by a bench led by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial.
NAB Amendments: A Brief Overview
The NAB Amendment Bill 2022 aimed to limit NAB's powers, removing several matters from its jurisdiction, including corruption cases involving less than Rs 50 crore. The bill also withdrew the President's authority to appoint Accountability Court judges and extended the tenure of the Prosecutor General NAB by three years.
Amendments made in NAB law by PDM govt
The PDM government introduced 27 amendments to the NAB Act in May 2022, which were passed by the National Assembly and Senate. However, former President Arif Alvi declined to sign the bill, leading to a joint session of the National Assembly and Senate in June 2022, where the amendments were approved.
Key changes included:
- Limiting NAB's jurisdiction over certain matters
- Exempting corruption cases involving less than Rs 50 crore from NAB's investigation
- Transferring the President's authority to appoint Accountability Court judges to the federal government
- Extending the Prosecutor General NAB's tenure by up to three years
- Allowing cases to be tried in the Accountability Court of the same area where the offense was committed
- Withdrawal of NAB's power to supervise with the help of the High Court
- Excluding federal, provincial, and local tax matters from NAB's purview
- Preventing other government agencies from assisting in investigations
- Requiring the accused to be informed of charges against them
- Extending the maximum remand period from 14 to 30 days
NAB amendments case: 'Whether we break law or army, it's the same thing': CJP
The hearing on the intra-court appeal against the Supreme Court's decision regarding the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments has been deferred for an indefinite period. Former prime minister Imran Khan, one of the main parties in the case, appeared from Adiala Jail through a video link.
A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case. Unlike many previous proceedings in significant cases, Thursday's hearing was not being broadcast live on TV and social media channels.
On being asked by the chief justice, senior counsel Khawaja Haris said he would assist the court in the case. The CJP asked if the petition against the NAB amendments was still pending in the Islamabad High Court. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan replied in the affirmative.
The hearing
Justice Athar Minallah asked if the application was approved for hearing in the high court. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied in the positive. The court then sought the high court's order of the hearing on NAB amendments case.
Advocate Khan told the court on being asked that a total of 53 hearings have been held in the main case.
The CJP asked how was the case being heard in the apex court while being heard in the high court also. "Did the court answer this question in its judgment of the main case?" he asked.
Makhdoom Ali Khan replied in the affirmative and then read out the relevant paragraphs of the Supreme Court decision.
“Why did the main case take so long?” the CJP asked.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked how long it took to create the entire NAB ordinance. The attorney general told the court that former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf assumed power on October 12, and introduced the NAB Ordinance in December. Musharraf made the entire ordinance in less than two months, he added.
Advocate Khan said initially, a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court was formed on the issue of general elections. Later, two of the judges recused and said the case was not maintainable.
“Even if a judge expresses his opinion in this case, he will remain a part of the bench,” the CJP remarked.
Justice Minallah said there was another point regarding the election case, adding that all the judges had said elections must be held in 90 days. However, the decision was not implemented, he remarked.
He further said that in 2023, the election case was declared inadmissible by two of the judges over similar reasons. “We said that there should be no interference in the case pending in the high court,” Justice Minallah said.
If the decision of the Lahore High Court had been implemented, then the elections would have been held on time, he said further. “An intra court order was not issued against the decision given by the Lahore High Court,” he further said.
On being asked about the order of the SC on elections, Advocate Khan said the order was probably not issued because of the disagreement on that point.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said there was a difference of opinion if seven judges should sign the order or five. The CJP said a judgement is one in which there is an order of the court.
The CJP looked at Justice Minallah and smiled, saying when the two of them sat on the bench, they got the elections conducted in 12 days. “Fortunately or unfortunately, I was not on the bench you are talking about,” CJP Isa remarked.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said they raised the issue of the case being inadmissible in court.
The CJP expressed indignation at the disturbances in the courtroom and told to leave whoever wanted to talk.
Meanwhile, Imran Khan’s image was removed from the screen showing him appearing through the video link.
Makhdoom Ali Khan said the Supreme Court cannot hear a petition pending in the high court, adding the NAB amendment case was also not maintainable in the Supreme Court.
After Justice Minallah and Justice Mandokhel gave some instructions to the court staff, the video of Imran Khan once again appeared on the screen inside the courtroom.
Advocate Khan said that after completing the Practice and Procedure Case, the NAB amendment case was started to be heard.
“Our position in the court was that no law can be suspended,” Makhdoom Ali Khan said, adding that it was suspended at the bill level in the Practice and Procedure case.
Justice Mandokhel asked if suspending the law at the level of the bill was akin to suspending the parliamentary proceedings. CJP Isa said if that was so, then why should parliament not be suspended.
“Whether we break the law or the army does so, it is the same thing,” the chief justice remarked, asking if "we can ever" progress as a country.
“Isn't it exploitation to continue hearing other cases by suspending a law and forming a bench against it?” CJP Isa.
Justice Minallah asked if an appeal could be filed by the aggrieved party or anyone? “How is the government an affected party in this case?” he asked further, adding that under the Practice and Procedure Act, an appeal could be filed only by the aggrieved person.
Justice Mandokhel said not only the affected person, but the law says the affected party can also file an appeal.
He further asked if a party member can vote against the party's decision on a bill. The CJP replied that there was a review petition on this matter. Justice Minallah said a strong parliament, an independent judiciary, and a fearless leader were essential against corruption.
CJP Isa said if ordinances had to be introduced, then parliament should be shut down. "Through an ordinance, you impose the will of one person on the whole nation. Isn't this against democracy? Shouldn't the president write detailed reasons for the ordinance?" he asked.
Justice Minallah then called Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan to the rostrum, and remarked, "You have started threatening the judges through a proxy? Will you make footballs out of turbans?"
The AGP replied that these remarks were insulting and called Senator Faisal Vawda's press conference disrespectful. "All this comes under contempt," he added. Justice Minallah told him he, as the attorney general, had powers in this regard.
The hearing on the intra-court appeals against the NAB amendments verdict was postponed indefinitely. The court noted that the next hearing would be held on the availability of the bench. The court also issued instructions to present Imran Khan on video link in the next hearing as well.
“I am not available next week,” Chief Justice Isa said, and asked Khawaja Haris if he was going anywhere. The lawyer replied in the negative, saying: No, I am here, I don't want to go anywhere.”
Justice Minallah said the PTI founder was also not going anywhere from jail, as his remarks evoked laughter in the courtroom.
At this, PTI leader Ali Muhammad Khan, sitting at the back of the room, shouted: “He will go straight from the jail to the Prime Minister House.”
Imran Khan's photograph
Meanwhile, after the photograph of PTI Founder Imran Khan went viral on social media, security was tightened outside the Supreme Court, as more officers were deployed. The SSP (security) himself reached outside the courtroom, and everyone entering the courtroom was being searched.
No unauthorized person was allowed to enter the courtroom.
A lawyer appeared on the rostrum and said the proceedings were not being broadcast live. CJP Isa told the lawyer to sit down, as they were hearing arguments. The lawyer argued that he just wanted to bring it to his notice. The CJP insisted the lawyer sit down.
Earlier, arrangements for the video link appearance of Imran Khan in Courtroom No 1 had been completed, while a video link was also arranged from Adiala Jail. Entry into Courtroom No.1 was restricted to the relevant people only.
Led by former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, the Supreme Court had accepted an appeal of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Founder Imran Khan, which subsequently deemed the NAB amendments introduced by the PDM coalition government invalid.
Challenging the verdict, the federal government promptly filed an appeal under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act. The first hearing into the intra-court appeal was held in October last year, and the second just two days ago.
In the intra-court appeal, the government had also made Imran Khan a party. In response to the Supreme Court's notice asking what he would like to say, the former premier expressed his intent to present his case himself.
At the last hearing, the SC bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, granted him permission to deliver his statement via video link.
Last hearing
On May 14, the Supreme Court accepted Imran Khan's request to present his arguments himself on the intra-court appeals against the nullification of NAB amendments.
A five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), is hearing intra-court appeals against the nullification of NAB amendments. The bench allowed the former prime minister to present his arguments through a video link.
During the hearing, Imran Khan's letter was presented in the Supreme Court. The CJP said that according to the letter, Imran Khan wanted to appear in his personal capacity to present his arguments. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said it was up to the petitioner to decide whether he wanted to appear in person or through counsel.
Justice Athar Minallah asked how he could be stopped if he wanted to appear in his personal capacity.
The CJP remarked that this matter was not about personal rights, but about amendments to the law. If it was his personal matter, he would have definitely appeared. "How can a common man assist the court? If the appearance in court is to be used for any other purpose, it will have to be examined," he remarked.
CJP Isa commented that it had turned into a strange situation, as the NAB was also a supporter of the government in this case. The PTI founder should be given an opportunity to listen to the position of the other side. They are opposing parties, they are not represented here.
SC allows Imran Khan to present arguments personally in NAB case
The Supreme Court has accepted PTI Founder Imran Khan's request to present his arguments himself on the intra-court appeals against the nullification of NAB amendments.
A five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), is hearing intra-court appeals against the nullification of NAB amendments. The bench allowed the former prime minister to present his arguments through a video link.
During the hearing, Imran Khan's letter was presented in the Supreme Court. The CJP said that according to the letter, Imran Khan wanted to appear in his personal capacity to present his arguments. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said it was up to the petitioner to decide whether he wanted to appear in person or through a counsel.
Justice Athar Minallah asked how he could be stopped if he wanted to appear in his personal capacity.
The CJP remarked that this matter was not about personal rights, but about amendments to the law. If it was his personal matter, he would have definitely appeared. "How can a common man assist the court? If the appearance in court is to be used for any other purpose, it will have to be examined," he remarked.
CJP Isa commented that it had turned into a strange situation, as the NAB was also a supporter of the government in this case. The PTI founder should be given an opportunity to listen to the position of the other side. They are opposing parties, they are not represented here.
Govt challenges SC decision nullifying NAB law amendments
The federal government has challenged the decision against the amendments to the NAB law in the Supreme Court. In the appeal, the government has asked the court to annul the decision against the amendments.
The federal government has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court under the Practice Procedure Act.
It has adopted the stance that fundamental rights have not been violated through the NAB amendments and parliament reserves the right to legislate.
The petition has made the federation, the NAB and PTI Chairman Imran Khan parties.
On the other hand, a petitioner, Zubair Ahmed Siddiqui, has also filed an appeal against the decision on the plea that his fundamental rights have been violated.
Alo Read: SC strikes down amendments to NAB law with 2-1 verdict on Imran's plea
It maintains that the Supreme Court pronounced the decision without serving any notice. It has asked the Supreme Court to nullify the decision and restore the amendments.
On Sept 15, the Supreme Court had announced its reserved verdict on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief’s petition and suspended the National Accountability Ordinance amendments.
The court, in its judgment, underscored the importance of the clause pertaining to the service of Pakistan, thus partially declaring the plea put forth by Imran Khan "admissible". A three-member special bench, led by former chief justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition.
Also Read: SC verdict opens floodgates of NAB cases against political, bureaucratic big guns
The landmark ruling resulted in the restoration of references against politicians occupying public positions. The decision invalidated the clause seeking to exclude references up to Rs500 million from NAB's jurisdiction while maintaining the ability to file references against individuals holding public office.
As a result, cases against prominent figures like Ishaq Dar, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Nawaz Sharif, Asif Zardari, Yousuf Raza Gilani, Raja Parvez Ashraf, Abdul Ghani Majeed, and Anwar Majeed stood revived.
NAB Amendments case detailed verdict issued
The Supreme Court of Pakistan released its detailed verdict on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief’s petition that suspended the National Accountability Ordinance amendments.
It is pertinent to note that after the NAB amendments were declared null and void, over 400 cases against political and bureaucratic big guns have been restored including former president Asif Ali Zardari, six former prime ministers, MPs, and bureaucrats.
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Dissenting Note
‘I have read the judgment authored by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan to which my learned brother Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan has concurred (“majority judgment”) provided to me last night. With great respect, I could not make myself agree to it.’
Due to the paucity of time, I cannot fully record reasons for my dissent and leave it for my detailed opinion to be recorded later. However, in view of the respect that I have for my learned colleagues and for their opinions, I want to explain, though briefly, why I am unable to agree with them.
In my humble opinion, the primary question in this case is not about the alleged lopsided amendments introduced in the NAB law by the Parliament but about the paramountcy of the Parliament, a house of the chosen representatives of about 240 million people of Pakistan. It is about the constitutional importance of parliamentary democracy and the separation of powers between three organs of the State. It is about the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court comprising unelected judges, second judging the purpose and policy of an enactment passed by the Parliament, without any clear violation beyond a reasonable doubt, of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision.
The majority judgment has fallen short, in my humble opinion, to recognize the constitutional command that 'the State shall exercise its power and authority through the chosen representatives of the people' and to recognize the principle of trichotomy of powers, which is the foundation of parliamentary democracy.
The majority has fallen prey to the unconstitutional objective of a parliamentarian, of transferring a political debate on the purpose and policy of an enactment from the Houses of the Parliament to the courthouse of the Supreme Court.
Without setting out a clear and objective test for determining how the claimed right to have accountability of the parliamentarians is an integral part of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the majority judgment through a long winding conjectural path of far-fetched “in turn” effects has tried hard to “ultimately” reach an apprehended violation of the fundamental rights.
The majority judgment has also fallen short to appreciate Const.P.21/2022 etc. 57 that what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo; the legislative power of the Parliament is never exhausted. If the Parliament can enact the NAB law, it can also repeal the entire law or amend the same.
For these and further reasons to be recorded in my detailed opinion later, with great respect, I disagree with my learned brothers and dismiss this petition.
Read Also:
SC verdict opens floodgates of NAB cases against political, bureaucratic big guns
SC strikes down amendments to NAB law with 2-1 verdict on Imran's plea
SC strikes down amendments to NAB law with 2-1 verdict on Imran's plea
The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) Friday announced its reserved verdict on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief’s petition and suspended the National Accountability Ordinance amendments.
The court, in its judgment, underscored the importance of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) clause pertaining to the Service of Pakistan, thus partially declaring the plea put forth by the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) "admissible".
A three-member special bench – led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial – and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition.
The CJP announced the ruling in this case on the last date of his retirement, as the verdict could have far-reaching implications on national politics.
Must Read: SC verdict opens floodgates of NAB cases against political, bureaucratic big guns
The apex court had reserved its verdict on September 5.
This landmark ruling has resulted in the restoration of references against politicians occupying public positions.
The ruling specifically reinstated the NAB clause pertaining to the Service of Pakistan.
The decision partially favored Chairman PTI's petitions, invalidating the clause excluding references up to 500 million from NAB's jurisdiction while maintaining the ability to file references against individuals holding public office.
Notably, the court nullified various NAB amendments, including those related to the termination of references against public officials and the minimum condition of 500 million, albeit with a dissenting opinion from Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
As a result, cases against prominent figures like Ishaq Dar, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, Nawaz Sharif, Zardari, Yousuf Raza Gilani, Raja Parvez Ashraf, Abdul Ghani Majeed, and Anwar Majeed are set to be revived.
The Supreme Court ordered the swift transfer of case records back to the respective courts.
The case, which challenged the NAB Amendments of 2022, had seen an extensive legal journey, with a total of 55 hearings conducted before reaching this crucial verdict.
Notably, Chairman PTI was aptly represented by Khawaja Haris, while the government's legal counsel, Makhdoom Ali Khan, staunchly opposed the petition, as did the Attorney General.