KARACHI, Dec 12: Only such cases as involve big amounts and wherein resort to plea bargain is in national interest should be tried by accountability courts, the Sindh High Court observed on Thursday.

Disposing of a number of writ petitions challenging the petitioners’ trial before accountability courts, a division bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Perwez, also observed that by empowering the National Accountability Bureau chairman to pick and choose cases to be tried by the accountability courts, the NAB Ordinance conferred too wide a discretion on the statutory functionary.

The bench accordingly asked the NAB chairman to examine within a month whether the cases or references proceeding against the petitioners, including Rauf B. Qadri, Tahir Siddiqui and Usman Farooqui, should be tried by accountability courts. The petitioners had submitted that the cases against them mostly involved default in repayment of small amounts as loans. Identical cases against other loanees or defaulters or alleged offenders were being tried by banking tribunals or special courts for offences in banks.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Khalid Anwer argued that the impugned provisions of the NAB Ordinance were discriminatory on the face of it. It was repugnant to the guarantees for equality before law and against discrimination enshrined in the constitution.

Contesting the petitions on behalf of the bureau, NAB prosecutor-general Naveed Rasul Mirza argued that the ordinance did not violate any provision of the constitution and its constitutional validity had been thoroughly examined and upheld by the Supreme Court in Asfandyar Wali’s case.

In its judgment authored by Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, the bench declared the absolute discretion conferred on the NAB chairman to select cases for trial by accountability courts violative of article 25 of the constitution, which said that all citizens were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection of law. The NAB Ordinance allowed people accused of identical offences to be tried under different laws and by different courts.

Remanding the petitioners’ cases, the bench asked the NAB chairman to see and satisfy himself whether the amounts involved therein were large enough to warrant or justify proceedings before the accountability courts. If the NAB chairman was not satisfied, the cases should be transferred to and tried by other courts of competent jurisdiction.

According to Advocate Khalid Anwar, the ruling has virtually structured the discretion conferred on the NAB chairman in keeping with the criterion laid down by the bench.