ISLAMABAD - A review petition has been moved to Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgement pertaining to amendments in NAB Law. Advocate Farouk H. Naek filed the review petition on behalf of petitioner Abdul Jabbar.
The petitioner had adopted the stance that the decision was announced into case without listening him.
He said that the accountability court had sent a case against him to the anti-corruption after the amendments. The petitions against the NAB amendment had not pointed out any violation of fundamental rights. It prayed the court to review the verdict dated September 15, regarding the NAB amendments.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on September 15 by a majority of 2:1 declared the amendments null and void and ordered the reopening of all corruption cases worth less than Rs500 million that were previously closed against political leaders from various parties and public office holders. The Court had directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to return all case records to the relevant courts within seven days. The federal government would also file an appeal against the Supreme Court decision to declare the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 null and void. According to the sources the appeal would be filed in the next few days through the law ministry. However, a petitioner Abdul Jabbar, through senior advocate Farooq H Naek, on Friday filed the review petition under Article 188 of the constitution, and cited PTI chief Imran Khan, federation through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, and NAB Chairman as respondents. The petitioner was neither a party to the proceedings in Constitutional Petition No.21 of 2022 before this apex court, nor was issued any notice, at any stage of the said proceedings. He, however, in the petition stated that he was directly and materially affected by the impugned judgment. The petitioner stated he had been condemned unheard. Farooq H Naeq stated that the impugned judgment has declared part of the legislation as ultra vires without considering the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy as well as laid down principle for striking out legislation. He added that the impugned judgment has declared the provisions of the amending Acts of the Parliament on the policy consideration and contrary to the ‘will of the people’ which the later scribed through the subject amendments. He further said that the impugned judgment, and for that matter the Constitutional Petition No.21 of 2022 or the CMA5029 of 2022, did not pass the foremost test of any breach of ‘fundamental right’, before which this Court may hold any legislation to be ultra vires under Article 184(3). The counsel contended that the impugned judgment has curtailed the power of the Parliament to enact legislation, as it was the Parliament which enacted the NAO, 1999 and it’s the Parliament alone to decide how and when to amend and/or alter the same. He also contended that the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the amendments carried out in the NAO, 1999 by the Parliament did not take away any offence from the grip of law, but have streamlined the same through channeling to the relevant authorities. Naek argued that the impugned judgment made the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2023 redundant, as the same provided the mechanism for all the cases which got effected by the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022. He maintained, “Through the Impugned Judgment, with much respect, this Hon’ble Court has assumed the position of being a ‘legislator’ and ‘policy maker’, which is beyond the scope of powers of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.”