ISLAMABAD:Supreme Court judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on Monday said that there would have been a discussion on National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments if Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had not resigned from the national assembly.
He expressed these views while hearing PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s petition against amendments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance.
A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that there were loopholes in country’s laws including sexual harassment laws.
He asked could the court direct legislation according to international conventions? He asked even if the court gave instructions, to what extent would the Parliament be bound by them?
Imran Khan’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the court had issued instructions to the parliament in many cases while it had also interpreted many laws in the context of international conventions.
Upon this, the Chief Justice remarked that the international convention also mentioned the corruption of private persons, private persons could be consultants, suppliers and contractors, private persons and companies could also submit false reports to the government. Khawaja Haris said that private individuals were accused of corruption of Rs 9 billion in the Punjab Bank case as well.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether any other country had made a corruption law according to the international convention? Khawaja Haris replied that he did not review the corruption laws of any other country and the crimes listed in the international convention were included in Pakistani law.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the world issued the International Convention against Corruption in 2003 while the positive thing was that Pakistan had anti-corruption law since 1947.
Addressing Khawaja Haris he said that the international convention he was debating was that of the United Nations.
He asked Haris that he was not standing in the United Nations.
Khawaja Haris said that if there were no rules according to the international convention, the country’s credibility would be lost. Corruption cases were linked to fundamental human rights as there was looting of public money, he added.
Justice Mansoor said that if a political party made a wrong law, people would not vote for it. This was the way of accountability of political parties in democracy, he said and added that the next elected government could change the law after coming to power.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that what could the court do if the parliament had relaxed laws for economic improvement in the financial policy. He asked voices were also being raised against criminal proceedings on suicide, could the court intervene in ending criminal proceedings on suicide?
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the flaws would probably have been pointed out if there was a debate in the parliament.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that this was the objection to Imran Khan’s conduct. If Imran Khan had not come out of the Parliament, there would have been a discussion on NAB amendments, he added.
Khawaja Haris said that PTI was present in the Senate, why the debate was not held there. The NAB law had been made in such a way that the crime could not be proved, he added.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked where it was written in the amendments that everyone was beyond accountability.
Khawaja Haris said that basic rights of people were involved in criminal cases as people’s money was involved in corruption cases. Minimum standards were given in the International Convention against Corruption, he said and added that according to the Convention the anti-corruption law could be made more stringent.
The Chief Justice said that the Parliament was not bound by the minimum standard. Khawaja Haris replied that the Supreme Court had given a decision in 1994 on the binding of the international convention.
Justice Ijaz asked whether there was any provision under which ‘Mutual Legal Assistance’ was said to be admissible.
Khawaja Haris said that there was a regular law regarding admissible evidence, only the rules under a procedure were accepted.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah inquired whether a convention could be used to address loopholes in local law. He asked was the law fully consistent with the Convention before the amendments?
Justice Ijaz asked the counsel whether he (Haris) was saying that the Convention rules were included in domestic law but were ‘de-tracked’ by these amendments.
Imran Khan’s lawyer replied that this was a weak law and it would hurt the credibility of the country in the world.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that these were all matters to be discussed in the United Nations.
Justice Ijaz said that the purpose of Parliament was to legislate.
Justice Mansoor asked if it was a policy matter, how could the court interfere in policy matters?
Khawaja Haris said that the court should examine the results of NAB amendments as relief was being provided to people involved in serious crimes.
Justice Mansoor said that political science was involved in this as if they made wrong laws, people would reject them by voting. The decision of the politicians was in the hands of the people, he added.
The Chief Justice remarked that even in the international convention, sentences were left to local laws.
Subsequently, the court adjourned further hearing on Imran Khan’s petition against the recent amendments in the NAB law till November 8.