PTI Chairman Imran Khan Wednesday approached the Supreme Court against the recent amendments to laws governing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), contending the changes would render the body toothless to prosecute white-collar crime by the public office-holders.
In the 94-page petition, Imran contended that the amendments made by the parliament to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws were a matter of great public importance.
He urged the court to strike down the amendments that take away the president’s power to appoint the chairman of the national accountability watchdog and instead give it to the ‘government’.
Imran contended that this was “ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan as guaranteed by Article 9, 14, 19A, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.”
Further, Imran contended that amendments introduced in sections 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(g), 5(o), 8(a)(iii), 16(e) and the two provisons added to sections 25(b), addition of clause (ba) in section 25, and deletion of a portion of section 25(c) are concerned, in that all these amendments operate to pre-emptively exonerate the holders of public office and/ or their co-conspirators from the offences of corruption and corrupt practices with which they stood charged in multiple references pending against them, protect them from being prosecuted for such offences involving malversation of national wealth, state assets and public money in future, and failed to secure these for the welfare and benefit of the people in gross disregard of the sacred trust reposed in these holders of public office by the people of Pakistan.”
He further contended that “most of the amendments brought about in the NAO, 1999, are person-specific, and as such, it is just and fair and to protect the constitutional and fundamental rights of the citizens of Pakistan.”
Imran also raised questions about the insertion of the term “private person” in the laws when the term ‘person’ exists in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
The PTI chief also raised questions over amending a clause on voluntary disclosure whereby such disclosure would result in disqualification from being elected to a public office for five years.
He contended that such an amendment was “designed to dissuade such persons [voluntarily disclosing] from speaking the truth as per their conscience and, as such, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on such person’s fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The former prime minister, who has been accused of graft, said that introduction of Section 18C, which binds the NAB chief or any officer authorized by them, to inquire into any case filed under NAO 1999 and to make the inquiry report available to the accused before an investigation is launched, would open the floodgates of litigation whereby accused would challenge the investigation initiated against them.
Noting that it would further slow down the process of investigation and filing a reference, the omission of sub-section ‘e’ was designed to hinder the arrest of a person against whom there is a clear-cut case.
The limit of completing investigations in sub-section ‘f’ would also frustrate “comprehensive investigation in cases of corruption and corrupt practices.”
Earlier this year, the National Assembly and the Senate passed the Elections (Amendment) Bill 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Bill 2021, with a view to bringing the necessary reforms the coalition parties had promised.
The government’s decision to steer the legislation into law was vehemently condemned by Imran, who had termed it a “black day” in the country’s history, charging the “imported government” with ending accountability. He had claimed that the ruling elite would reap the biggest fruits from the tweaks.
