ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked if there was any report that suggested performance trajectory or benefits the country has reaped ever since the introduction of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

“Has NAO done anything good to the country?” Justice Shah asked senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan, who is defending amendments to the NAB law on behalf of the government. The judge wondered why countries like India did not have specific accountability laws like NAO if it was such a wonderful law to purge the country of corruption.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial reminded the counsel that the Indians considered the public accountability or rule of law concept as something that concerns the fundamental rights of people, adding that there were two to three judgements in Pakistan in which petitions under Article 184(3) were accepted on the grounds that certain provisions of the Constitution, and not necessarily any fundamental right, have been violated.

The CJP was heading a three-judge SC bench that had taken up a challenge by former prime minister Imran Khan to the Aug 2022 amendments to NAO.

Govt counsel says Imran has failed to justify bona fide right to invoke court’s jurisdiction

The counsel told the court that there were a few reports which he would try to get hold of but recalled that one of the grounds in the famous Reko Diq award annulment case was that Pakistan was a country known for not implementing awards.

“Had we not entered into a negotiated agreement in the Reko Diq case after the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court, imagine the predicament we would have to face to pay the heavy amount of money, especially in the present economic situation,” the counsel argued.

Citing a number of previous judgements, the counsel questioned the maintainability of Imran Khan’s petition when five similar petitions were pending before the Islamabad High Court.

The counsel contended that the PTI chairman had neither revealed any fact in his petition nor was any submission made that the petitioner has a bona fide right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) when he himself had enacted similar amendments through ordinances when he was the prime minister.

Likewise, he said, the petitioner also failed to justify how he could invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction in a bona fide manner when his party members had tendered resignations from the National Assembly on his call and boycotted the Senate again on his call after his abandonment of parliament and democratic parliamentary procedures.

The ex-PM in his petition has not explained why he did not oppose the bill when it was placed before the National Assembly, the counsel said, adding that the petitioner could also not explain why he did not debate these changes or amendments in parliament, educate the nation, mobilise public opinion and galvanise bipartisan support.

The petitioner, Makhdoom Ali argued, had not cited one precedent where a family of victim has successfully challenged the reduction in penalty or amendments making a procedure less strict or a change of evidentiary requirements favourable to the accused as violation of the fundamental rights.

During the hearing when the counsel was submitting voluminous documents to the court in favour of his arguments, Justice Shah observed in a candid manner that it was not environmentally friendly, and ideally it would be better if iPad was provided instead of papers.

“From my own resources, I can offer USB and not iPad,” said the counsel, but Justice Shah observed that he was belittling his resources.

Published in Dawn, February 23rd, 2023