ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday was urged to seek details of individuals acquitted in corruption cases and the references returned by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as a result of ordinances promulgated by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) during its four-year tenure.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, who is representing the federal government in a petition against changes to NAB law made by the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), said the apex court should also inquire how many references were returned as a result of legislation enacted by the former ruling party. Instead of asking how many parliamentarians were among 386 cases that were returned to NAB by courts following the recent tweaks, the court should seek information about the impact of PTI-made legislation.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked NAB lawyer Mumtaz Yousaf to come up with a reply to the argument put forth by the counsel. Justice Bandial is heading a three-member bench that had taken up challenges to the August 2022 amendments to the NAB law by former prime minister Imran Khan.

The counsel said that NAB should answer how many applications the bureau received after the promulgation of five ordinances by the PTI government and how many acquittals were resultantly granted. The arguments came against the backdrop of Tuesday’s direction to NAB by the court to furnish details on relief parliamentarians obtained after the recent amendments to the NAB ordinance.

Justice Ahsan says recent amendments appear to be ‘granting a grand amnesty’

The NAB second amendment bill, which was passed by the National Assembly last year, was a combination of ordinances that were promulgated by the previous government. He added the PDM government did not move a fresh bill in this regard. He emphasised that acquittals did take place and references were returned under the ordinance brought by the previous government.

‘Wrong impression’

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that a wrong impression had been created that with the help of the amendments to the accountability law, the accused would get off scot-free. There are other forums and laws under which the accused could be tried for the offence they committed as they would still be held accountable under a different law.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that what bothered him the most was that even if these references stayed in courts, the definition and the standard of proof in the accountability law had been lowered to such an extent that the question of conviction has become impossible.

“On the face of it, the amendment appears to be granting a grand amnesty,” observed Justice Ahsan. These amendments will wipe the slate clean and even if the accused faced a trial, it would be very difficult to hand out any conviction against him, he added. When the accountability court grants an acquittal, it becomes a final chapter since the entire law has been redefined by changing the goal post, observed Justice Ahsan.

The counsel contended that as per his experience, the observations of a judge were tentative in nature and that the bench was always open to persuasion through arguments. Justice Ahsan observed that his observations were “tentative in nature until the lawyers close their case and then he retires to his chamber and applies his mind to determine the case”.

The counsel argued that he would try to convince the court that there was more than one way to look at the laws or amendments. Until a serious unconstitutionality arose leading to controversy, a “defeated legislation” in parliament should not be transferred to the courts.

Justice Bandial observed that the validity of the law required finding “factual controversy” and questioned whether returning 386 references as a result of which trials against the accused become stalled not amounted to facts of the case.

Published in Dawn, January 19th, 2023