SC reserves verdict in NAB amendments case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Thursday reserved its verdict on the federal government’s plea requesting it to review the decision against amendments to National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws, ARY News reported.

A five-member SC larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from all sides.

During the hearing on Thursday, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, who challenged the amendments, attended the hearing via video link from the Adial jail in Rawalpindi and completed his arguments.

The SC heard the final arguments from all sides and reserved the verdict to a date to be later pronounced by the court’s office.

It is pertinent to mention here that the apex court struck down amendments made to NAB laws on the PTI founder’s plea.

In a majority 2-1 verdict, the top court had 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 top court also restored graft cases against public office holders that were closed down following the amendments to NAB laws.

Subsequently, the federal government filed the review plea in the case under the SC Practice and Procedure Law and made the Federation of Pakistan, National Accountability Bureau, and PTI founder respondents.

Citing no violation of basic rights with the NAB amendments, the federal government pleaded with the SC to review its decision. “Legislation is the right of the Parliament,” the plea said.

Earlier, the SC rejected the plea seeking a live broadcast of the case.

In a detailed order on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government’s plea, the SC maintained “In live-streaming cases, there is always a possibility that the facility may be misused or exploited for ulterior or personal purposes. There is also the possibility of grandstanding while the nation watches. This court must be vigilant against such misuse and/or exploitation.”

It further stated that when the head of a political party wants to be heard, there is a real probability that these hearings may be used for “political purposes and point scoring” and in respect of matters which do not concern these appeals.

“This was a paramount consideration when we had dismissed the application. And, our apprehension proved correct later in the day”, it added.