ISLAMABAD: A Supreme Court bench seized with petitions against changes to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) on Tuesday suggested that political parties, particularly the PTI, should consider adopting parliamentary means to amend the NAB law, instead of pursuing the matter before the apex court.

The observation came against the backdrop of media reports that PTI, led by former prime minister Imran Khan, was considering returning to the National Assembly. It may be recalled that PTI lawmakers had quit the lower house of parliament following the ouster of Mr Khan in April last year.

During the hearing, Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed, “Will it not be appropriate if a bi-partisan approach is taken to support the accountability process by realising its significance, and after suggesting amendments the law is adopted with consensus.”

Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan, who is representing the government, responded he had no specific instructions but if PTI returns to parliament, it could move a bill for changes to the accountability law. If they move the bill, what option the government will have but to participate in the debate, the counsel added.

The counsel assured that he would seek specific instructions in this regard.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah added that if there is a remedy available in parliament, then why not move towards adopting the parliamentary process. When the same question was put to Khawaja Haris, representing Imran Khan, he contended that it was a political question. According to Mr Haris, it was always difficult to reach a definite decision when the political situation was volatile.

If the retrospective aspect is addressed then 90 per cent of the case at hand will go away and the court would not need to interpret the NAO amendments, the CJP said, adding that he had suggested half a dozen times that the petitioner – PTI – return to parliament.

‘Unconstitutionality’ of law

The government’s lawyer said that unless there was a clear unconstitutionality pointed out, the differences in perception were not a criterion to examine the validity of a law.

The counsel argued that he had not come across any precedence where the courts have struck down a law on the basis of motives behind the legislation. He also wondered how could one decide if someone had acted in the national interest or on the basis of self-interest.

A former prime minister and CEO of a state-owned organisation were put behind bars whereas a special law was introduced to favour a businessman by acquitting him of all charges, only to make him a senator, the lawyer said, adding that nobody laid a finger at this anomaly.

At this, the CJP asked the counsel to bring a petition in this regard instead of asking the court to take suo motu action. Justice Shah asked whether the said case should be entertained by this court since the petitioner could have gone back to parliament but he chose to opt for this court instead of the house.

Justice Ahsan, however, added that if the matter was of public importance and involved fundamental rights then the identity or locus standi of the petitioner becomes immaterial. Justice Shah responded whether undermining parliament via non-participation in the parliamentary process was an important issue or submitting a petition before the court regarding a matter of public importance.

The court also asked NAB to furnish a complete report on parliamentarians’ cases that have returned from accountability courts in light of new amendments to the NAB law.

Published in Dawn, January 18th, 2023