Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, while hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan\u2019s petition against the August 2022 amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance on Friday, asked whether boycotting Parliament and then going to court was not weakening parliamentary democracy.
\nAfter coming into power in April, the incumbent PDM government passed the Nati\u00adonal Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022 \u2014 a move that was heavily criticised by PTI, who termed the legislation an attempt to turn the anti-graft watchdog into a \u201ctoothless\u201d organisation.
\nIn June, the former prime minister challenged the amendments to the NAB ordinance, arguing that it is a violation of fundamental rights. The petition stated that the amendments will \u201cvirtually eliminate any white-collar crime committed by a public office holder\u201d.
\nA three judge-bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ahsan, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah heard the petition today.
\nAs the hearing commenced, Justice Shah recalled that Imran and his party had abstained from voting on the NAB ordinance and asked if those who refused to vote had the right to approach the court.
\n\u201cCan a National Assembly member leave the Parliament empty? Is bringing matters pertaining to the Parliament to court not weakening the legislature,\u201d he asked.
\nJustice Shah observed that Imran\u2019s resignation had not been accepted which meant that he was still a member of the NA.
\n\u201cAn MNA is the representative of the people of a constituency and is responsible for protecting their trust in him,\u201d he stressed and asked if it was fair for a \u201ctrustee of the public\u201d to boycott the National Assembly.
\n\u201cIs boycotting Parliament and then coming to court not weakening parliamentary democracy,\u201d the judge inquired.
\n\u201cHow would it be determined if this case is linked to the benefit of the people? Will three judges sitting here decide what is in the public interest and what is not?\u201d
\nJustice Shah went on to ask if the nation was shouting against the NAB amendments, highlighting that the petitioner had not pointed out which fundamental rights of the people were being violated by the ordinance.
\n\u201cImran Khan\u2019s lawyer talks about Islamic provisions and the structure of the Constitution \u2026 Imran Khan could have easily defeated the amendments in Parliament,\u201d he remarked.
\nHere, senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan \u2014 who is representing the government and defending the amendments before the apex court \u2014 said if all the PTI lawmakers had attended the joint session of the Parliament, they would have been in the majority.
\nMeanwhile, Justice Bandial said the court would seek a response from Imran on the matter.
\n\u201cShould we not hear the petitioner\u2019s argument only on the basis that his conduct was incorrect?
\n\u201cEvery leader takes recourse from the Constitution to justify his actions \u2026 boycotting Parliament was PTI\u2019s political strategy. It is not necessary that every political strategy has a legal justification.\u201d
\nThe top judge went on to say that oftentimes even a legal policy looks ill-advised politically, adding that boycotting Parliament was a common practise worldwide. \u201cThe subcontinent has a long history of boycotts.\u201d
\nAt one point during the hearing, Justice Ahsan asked: \u201cHow many people voted in favour of the NAB amendments during the joint sitting of the Parliament?\u201d
\nIn his response, senior lawyer Khan said that 166 members had attended the session.
\n\u201cIn a joint sitting, the number of parliamentarians should be 446. This means that fewer than half of the members voted for the amendment,\u201d Justice Ahsan observed, adding that the court would only examine fundamental rights and points of crossing constitutional limits.
\nHe noted that the petitioner had challenged the NAB amendments, claiming that it was in violation of the public interest and fundamental rights.
\n\u201cThe question of Imran Khan\u2019s conduct would have come into question if he was personally benefitting from the NAB amendments. Apparently, the petitioner does not seem to have any personal interest attached to the ordinance,\u201d the judge maintained.
\nHere, Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that amendments were not necessarily challenged for personal interests. \u201cThe petitioner can also gain political advantage from challenging the NAB amendments.\u201d
\nThe lawyer stated that the PTI approached the court when its NA resignations were not approved and even when they were approved.
\n\u201cImran Khan deliberately decided to leave Parliament empty,\u201d he contended.
\nAt that, CJP Bandial said: \u201cMaybe Imran knew he would not be successful in Parliament and this is why he came to court. Along with being a politician, Imran Khan is also a resident of this country.\u201d
\nHowever, the government\u2019s lawyer interjected that cases were based on facts and not speculation. \u201cInstead of upholding or invalidating the legislation, the court can also return it without a decision,\u201d he suggested.
\nOn the other hand, Justice Shah observed that if the court declared the NAB law null and void today, \u201canyone will challenge laws in the SC tomorrow\u201d.
\nSubsequently, the court adjourned the hearing till Feb 14.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, while hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan\u2019s petition against the August 2022 amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4748,"comment_status":"registered_only","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-latest-news-updates"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4747\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diplomacypakistan.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}