ISLAMABAD    -    Chief Justice of Paki­stan Justice Umar Ata Bandial Thursday said that why not call Pa­kistan Tehreek-e-In­saf (PTI) Chairman Im­ran Khan to explain the reasons for filing the petition against the amendments in the Na­tional Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Jus­tice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah conducted hearing of Imran Khan’s petition against the amend­ments in the NAO, 1999.

During the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan ar­guing on the locus stan­di of the petition contended that the petitioner has to show how he is aggrieved of the amend­ments and the court has to see his conduct.

The Chief Justice said that the facts of this case are somewhat different, as the petitioner is the head of one of the largest parties in the country, and the former prime minister. Makhdoom said that but now he (petitioner) is an ordinary cit­izen. The CJP then said that in the political tur­moil and conflict as a strategy the petitioner’s party boycotted the Parliament, but when they decide to go back to the Parliament, the Speaker accepted their resignations.

Justice Bandial further said that the issue of corruption has been at the centre stage since the creation of Pakistan. This is not a minor issue, he added. The CJP further said that the real answer of all the political turmoil is the election. Send this issue to the people of Pakistan, but why it has not been sent to them. The Chief Justice not­ed that the ECP had stated in the speaker ruling case that they would be ready to conduct elec­tions in November 2022.” They (ECP) dragged eight months. Parliament is not complete and the controversy created over the legislation. Justice Bandial told the counsel that locus standi is not the good point. You (government) can challenge the petition on bona fide but not on the ground of locus standi. Justice Mansoor questioned what were the reasons that the petitioner instead of the debating the issue in the Parliament walked out of it. He further asked what is the signifi­cance of the Parliament? Are the parliamentar­ians not the trustee? The people have put their trust and sent him (Imran) to the Parliament, but he walked out of it, adding that as a trustee he has not played his role.

Makhdoom said that the conduct of the peti­tioner is that he made changes in the law by way of promulgating the ordinances, adding that be­fore making changes in the NAB law he did not deem to seek the opinion of the parliament that is the locus standi. Justice Mansoor remarked that some drastic things have happened, which have badly ruined the fabric of the society. He questioned if something wrong has happened in Parliament then should the court fix it?

Makhdoom said in the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 there is change of penalty, forum and certain presumptions. He argued that if every legislation is questioned then every opposition leader would come before the Court saying he is head of the largest party and the court must hear his plea against the leg­islation passed by the majority in the Parliament.

The Chief Justice said that it is only assumed that the references returned by the Account­ability Court will go to another forum, but in the last eight months the no reference has been to any other forum. He said that there is flavour of self-serving in the impugned law. There is apprehension that it was done in hurry. He ar­gued that how the court can question whether the law was passed quickly or lately. He said the draft bill on the ordinances, through that chang­es were made in NAO, was already before the Standing Committee. After Imran’s removal it was tabled in the National Assembly by the in­cumbent government. He informed that PTI government issued five ordinances to amend the NAO, 1999, adding the present government has only brought subtle changes of expression.

The counsel said that the petitioner, after the acceptance of 11 resignations of the PTI MNAs had contested by-election from 8 seats, but won from seven constituencies, adding it means he shows the confidence in the Parliament. He, however, raised question why the petitioner is not using the Assembly for which it is being cre­ated. Justice Mansoor questioned that what the role of minority in the Parliament is. It is just to debate and when to lose the debate then boycott the Parliament. Makhdoom said that minority views are also known to the public. 

He then gave example of SC opinion on Arti­cle 63A of the Constitution where two judg­es expressed different views than the majority. Former CJP A R Cornelius dissent in Maulvi Ta­mizuddin case is also known to the public.

Makhdoom argued that amendments are be­ing challenged by the petitioner and not the pub­lic. The chief justice inquired the counsel “how about asking the gentleman to come before the court and explain (reason). “What is the point of contesting the election when you are not going to join the Parliament.” Justice Ijaz said when it is clear the law is self-serving and against the ba­sic norm, then should the court not intervene? He further said that huge interest is involved, add­ing that this is self-serving law designed to ben­efit the select people sitting there (parliament).