Imran’s petition against NAB amendments to be heard on daily basis: CJP Bandial

[ghazi52]

,;,;,;

Imran’s petition against NAB amendments to be heard on daily basis: CJP Bandial​

Haseeb Bhatti
October 4, 2022


Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday said that PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s petition against recent amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance will be heard on a daily basis.

The apex judge passed the order after a three-member Supreme Court (SC) bench, comprising CJP himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took up the petition that called the new ordinance an “alleged violation of fundamental rights”.

During the hearing today, Justice Bandial asked Khwaja Haris, Imran’s lawyer, how the recent amendments make the NAB law ineffective. “How are they a violation of basic human rights?”

The hearing​

At the outset of the hearing, PTI’s lawyer contended that after the amendments several corruption cases were withdrawn while pending inquiries were also suspended midway. “The government has curtailed powers of NAB courts to hide [its] corruption.”

Haris argued that amendments in several clauses of the new ordinance had given relaxations to government officials.

Separately, in response to a question about the government’s stance on the matter, Justice Bandial noted that neither the watchdog nor the federal government had submitted their responses in the case so far.

“NAB has said that it will adopt the arguments of the attorney general,” Justice Ahsan recalled. “The bureau has presented their arguments verbally but hasn’t submitted anything written yet.”

At one point during the hearing, the CJP said that the court had to see if the new laws violated the Constitution and fundamental rights.

Subsequently, the apex judge ruled that the case will be heard on a daily basis and adjourned the hearing till Oct 5, 12:30pm.

Imran’s petition​

In his petition, Imran Khan had claimed that the amendments to the NAB law were made to benefit the influential accused persons and legitimise corruption.

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

The petition pleaded that the fresh amendments tend to scrap corruption cases against the president, prime minister, chief ministers and ministers and provide an opportunity to the convicted public office-holders to get their conviction undone.

“The amendments to the NAO is tantamount to depriving the citizens of Pakistan of having access to law to effectively question their chosen representatives in case of breach of their duty towards the people of Pakistan,” the petition argued.

Moreover, the word “benamidar” has been re-defined, making it difficult for the prosecution to prove someone as fictitious owner of a property, the petition argued.

The application has also challenged the second amendment to the law done by the coalition government on Aug 16 in which offences involving misappropriation of less than Rs500 million were taken out of the purview of the law.

Moreover, absconders who were punished under Section 31 of the ordinance in absentia were also taken out.

The petition stated that most of the changes were ‘person specific’.

The petitioner pleaded that it would be just and fair in protecting the constitutional and fundamental rights of the citizens that NAB should be asked to provide details of all cases, which relate to prominent and influential holders of public office, especially regarding cases pertaining to offences of owning assets (movable and immovable) beyond known sources of income and misuse of authority.

However, the petitioner feared, the recent amendments operated to preemptively exonerate public office holders or their co-conspirators from offences of corruption.

The petition claimed the amendments were also ultra vires of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people in articles 9, 14, 18, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

NAB law amendment​

The NAB (Second Amendment) Bill 2021 states that NAB’s deputy chairman, to be appointed by the federal government, would become the acting chairman of the bureau following the completion of the tenure of the chairman.

The bill has also reduced the four-year term of the NAB chairman and the bureau’s prosecutor general to three years. After approval of the law, NAB will not be able to act on federal, provincial or local tax matters. Moreover, the regulatory bodies functioning in the country have also been placed out of NAB’s domain.

It says that “all pending inquiries, investigations, trials or proceedings under this ordinance, relating to persons or transactions … shall stand transferred to the concerned authorities, departments and courts under the respective laws.”

It has also set a three-year term for the judges of the accountability courts. It will also make it binding upon the courts to decide a case within one year. Under the proposed law, it has been made binding upon NAB to ensure the availability of evidence against an accused prior to his or her arrest.

According to one of the key amendments, the act “shall be deemed to have taken effect on and from the commencement of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999”.

Imran’s petition against NAB amendments to be heard on daily basis: CJP Bandial

Top judge says the court has to see if the new law violates the Constitution and fundamental rights.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

l;;l

NAB informs SC: 219 references withdrawn following NAO amendments​

Terence J Sigamony
October 9, 2022

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau has informed the Supreme Court that in light of the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 219 references have been withdrawn and this figure will reach 280 as the process is going on.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Thursday, heard the constitutional petition of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.

The NAB additional prosecution informed the SC that now the committee in the NAB’s office will examine these cases and decide about their fate.

Khawaja Haris, who represented the PTI chairman, informed the SC that in the Amnesty Scheme, 2018, many people had whitened their black money by paying a certain amount.

He said the people who earned billions of rupees through corruption were given benefits through the Amnesty Scheme 2018, adding through the amendments the persons who benefited from the Amnesty Scheme were given protection. He said the government was effectively providing them with the opportunity to get away with the convictions.

Justice Mansoor inquired are you saying that the Amnesty Scheme was “a fraud”, adding Amnesty Schemes were launched in the past and the people whitened their money. Haris replied that he was not saying that the scheme was a fraud. Justice Mansoor then questioned that if the Amnesty Schemes’ documents are confidential then how he has information about such persons and the billions of rupees in transactions.

The counsel responded that he had seen this in the JIT reports. He said that the definition of “private person” has been changed.

The chief justice asked the counsel that now you want that the ordinary citizens who availed advantage under the Amnesty Scheme, harassed. He said that the amendments justify giving them protection. The court observed that due to the NAB law many businessmen have shifted their businesses to other countries in order to avoid unnecessary harassment.

The chief justice commended the drafting of the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022. He said in a short time (of two to three months), the federal government has prepared it. Haris said the credit of its good drafting also goes to the previous government.

Haris said that the benchmark of Rs500 million is set as an offense under the NAB law. Upon that, Justice Ijaz said it means corruption of below Rs490 million is justified but if anyone takes a bribe of more than Rs500 million then it will be wrong.

He said that under the amendments a person, who was convicted by the court of his sentence as well as the conviction will be wiped out and would ask the NAB to return his money which he had paid in plea bargain or voluntary return as he had made the payment under duress.

Justice Ijaz said the sentence can go away but whether the conviction will also be wiped out. Isn’t it akin to a Presidential pardon? The pardon wipes out the sentence but the conviction remains.

He said the concept of voluntary return or plea bargain is taken from the UK and the USA so the person instead of wasting time and money is released by paying money. Haris said that in the plea bargain the person confesses his crime and then make arrangements with the approval of the court to make payment of the monetary gain.

Justice Mansoor noted that if in the murder cases a murderer makes a settlement with the deceased’s family then he is acquitted then why not it is possible under the amendments. The case was adjourned until Monday (Oct 10).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday observed that holding the entire cabinet or committee responsible for jointly taken decisions would slow up the country’s decision making process, as the Supreme Court (SC) took up former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition against the recent amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance.

A three-member bench, comprising the chief justice himself, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, heard PTI lawyer Khwaja Haris’ arguments on Imran’s plea, which claims the new NAB laws “are a violation of fundamental rights”.

At the outset of the hearing today, Imran’s lawyer pointed out that as part of NAB amendments, the decision of the federal cabinet and working development parties had been excluded from the jurisdiction of accountability watchdog. “The new laws are also a violation of the international conventions of anti-corruption.”

At this, Justice Bandial remarked that important decisions in the country are taken jointly by the federal cabinet and committees, and if all its members were to be deemed accused, “who would take the decisions then?”

“If the parliament starts doing everything, the decision-making process will slow down,” he said.

The CJP questioned the history of NAB law’s application, recalling that cases pertaining to LNG (liquified natural gas) contracts were lodged without proper examination of the facts. “Such contracts are prepared on the government level.”

The top judge said that several bureaucrats were made to serve jail time only to be later acquitted in the reference, adding that “sometimes things are not under the control of the bureaucracy”.

Talking about cases regarding assets beyond means, he said that such cases were considered a crime across the world. “We will review the NAB amendments in the context of international standards and local laws,” Justice Bandial observed.

Meanwhile, Justice Shah inquired if those who managed to come out scot-free from the NAB laws could be punished under any other law.

“There is no other law for misuse of power,” the PTI lawyer replied, adding that after the new amendments, it had become impossible to prove corruption of more than Rs500 million.

‘New laws will promote systematic corruption’​

At one point during the hearing, Justice Ahsan observed that the new laws would promote systematic corruption. “The amendments have allowed the provision of financial benefits that do not fall within the category of the NAB law.”

Here, Haris said that action against public officeholders could be taken only after proving the financial benefit they had gained. “A case won’t be merited even if the officeholder’s front man and children were misusing the powers.”

Subsequently, Justice Shah asked if the amendments would have been challenged if they were passed in 1999.

“A law is only challenged when defects are revealed in its implementation,” Haris said, adding that the new NAB laws were formed to benefit “certain people”.

He alleged that the first target of the incumbent government was to close its NAB cases. “Can we just let billions of rupees spent on NAB investigations go to waste?

“Do the judges of accountability courts have doubts that they can’t serve justice,” the PTI lawyer argued.

The court subsequently adjourned the hearing till October 18.

Imran’s petition​

In his petition, Imran Khan had claimed that the amendments to the NAB law were made to benefit the influential accused persons and legitimise corruption.

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

The petition pleaded that the fresh amendments tend to scrap corruption cases against the president, prime minister, chief ministers and ministers and provide an opportunity to the convicted public office-holders to get their conviction undone.

“The amendments to the NAO is tantamount to depriving the citizens of Pakistan of having access to law to effectively question their chosen representatives in case of breach of their duty towards the people of Pakistan,” the petition argued.

Moreover, the word “benamidar” has been re-defined, making it difficult for the prosecution to prove someone as fictitious owner of a property, the petition argued.

The application has also challenged the second amendment to the law done by the coalition government on Aug 16 in which offences involving misappropriation of less than Rs500 million were taken out of the purview of the law.

Moreover, absconders who were punished under Section 31 of the ordinance in absentia were also taken out.

The petition stated that most of the changes were ‘person specific’.

The petitioner pleaded that it would be just and fair in protecting the constitutional and fundamental rights of the citizens that NAB should be asked to provide details of all cases, which relate to prominent and influential holders of public office, especially regarding cases pertaining to offences of owning assets (movable and immovable) beyond known sources of income and misuse of authority.

However, the petitioner feared, the recent amendments operated to preemptively exonerate public office holders or their co-conspirators from offences of corruption.

The petition claimed the amendments were also ultra vires of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people in articles 9, 14, 18, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

NAB law amendment​

The NAB (Second Amendment) Bill 2021 states that NAB’s deputy chairman, to be appointed by the federal government, would become the acting chairman of the bureau following the completion of the tenure of the chairman.

The bill has also reduced the four-year term of the NAB chairman and the bureau’s prosecutor general to three years. After approval of the law, NAB will not be able to act on federal, provincial or local tax matters. Moreover, the regulatory bodies functioning in the country have also been placed out of NAB’s domain.

It says that “all pending inquiries, investigations, trials or proceedings under this ordinance, relating to persons or transactions … shall stand transferred to the concerned authorities, departments and courts under the respective laws.”

It has also set a three-year term for the judges of the accountability courts. It will also make it binding upon the courts to decide a case within one year. Under the proposed law, it has been made binding upon NAB to ensure the availability of evidence against an accused prior to his or her arrest.

According to one of the key amendments, the act “shall be deemed to have taken effect on and from the commencement of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999”.

 

[Jazzbot]

Banana republic, we deserve to be called as a failed state. All this is just a topi drama for time pass. Courts on the other hand are giving clean chits to all criminals on daily basis.