ISLAMABAD: A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) will commence hearing of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s petition, challenging the recent amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) on Tuesday (July 19).

A bench will comprise Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. It will take up the petition which Justice Ahsan had ordered placement before a bench for regular hearing in his chamber on July 6.

In its objection, the registrar office had returned the petition seeking to strike down the amendments made through the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022 for being ultra vires to the Constitution.

The PML-N-led coalition government introduced 27 key amendments to NAO but President Dr Arif Alvi did not accord his assent to it. However, the bill was later adopted in the joint sitting of parliament and notified.

Imran claims amendments will have effect of legitimising certain forms of corruption

In its petition, the PTI chairman argued that the amendments tended to scrap corruption cases against the prime minister, chief ministers and ministers and would provide an opportunity to already convicted public office-holders to get their conviction undone.

The amendments are tantamount to depriving the people of Pakistan of their right to having access to law to effectively question their chosen representatives in case of breach of their duty towards them, the petition argued, adding that the amendments would have the effect of legitimising certain forms of corruption and creating select islands of accountability to exclude from prosecution certain members of the parliament, including ministers and the prime minister.

Moreover, the word “benamidar” has been redefined making it difficult for the prosecution to prove someone as the fictitious owner of a property. Redefining “assets” was manifestly aimed at and will result in acquittal or discharge of all those holders of public office who are presently facing trial for offences of corruption, it added.

About the deletion of Section 14 of NAO, which provided for presumptions of guilt and shifting burden of proof on the accused person, the petition said this was inevitable to prevent commission of crime by holders of public office with impunity. After its omission, it becomes impossible for the prosecution to prove white collar crime against the holders of public office.

The petition also argued that the amendments were unreasonable and would defeat the purpose for which the law was enacted by restricting the prosecution from taking action against decisions taken by the prime ministers, ministers, cabinet members, members and officials of committees and subcommittees, State Bank of Pakistan and other bodies.

Under the amendments, according to the petition, NAO would move only to those cases of corruption where the concerned holder of public office had received a monetary gain as a result of decisions taken by the high office.

It said the amendments had not taken out of the ambit of accountability all such cases of corruption where the facts indisputably reveal that through the act of corruption, monetary, material or any other benefit had definitely been provided to a private person, but no evidence of receipt of a monetary gain by the holder of public office could be collected during investigation, thereby protecting both the ‘private person’ and the holder of public office from being prosecuted for their (proven) illegal gain provided by one to the other.

Likewise, the blanket immunity from prosecution given to officials of all regulatory bodies, regarding all matters decided by them, is also unreasonable, unconstitutional and against the very concept of accountability, in that most, if not all of these regulatory authorities, such as Nepra, SECP, the Competition Commission of Pakistan, the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority which deal with matters vital to the financial interests and welfare of the people of Pakistan.

But by virtue of the amendments, officials associated with these regulatory authorities cannot be held accountable to the people of Pakistan even where decisions taken by them may be proved to be based on corruption or corrupt practices as defined in NAO 1999.

Published in Dawn, July 16th, 2022