LAHORE, April 15: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday sought legal assistance of the state counsel on a proposition as to whether the NAB (Amended) Ordinance 2002 required validation of parliament to exist as a law.
The Punjab advocate general, NAB prosecutor general and deputy attorney general have been asked to make submissions on April 22. This proposition arose during the arguments made by both the parties in a revision appeal filed by PPP Secretary-General Jehangir Badr, who sought his exoneration from certain allegations levelled in a NAB reference.
Mr Badr had pleaded in the court that the allegations that he had failed to exercise his authority as the federal petroleum minister while granting monetary benefit to Messrs Amin Brothers, levelled in the chargesheet, should be removed. He requested it on the ground that the LHC had the authority to revise the trial court’s decision to indict him on these charges, and he could avail himself of this relief under the provisions of the NAB Ordinance 1999.
According to the accused, the NAB (Amended) Ordinance 2002 in which the right to file a revision against any interim order of the accountability court had been withdrawn, had become a dead law since it was promulgated on Nov 23, 2002, and had not been validated by the National Assembly within four months following the election of parliament.
NAB counsel Javed Shaukat Malik argued that the chief executive’s order of 2002 had specifically laid down that the CE would continue to hold his office and pass orders, including those pertaining to the issuance of an ordinance till the prime minister took oath (which he took in January last). This ordinance was passed before the issuance of the Restoration of Democracy Order 2003, and does not require the validation of parliament, the counsel argued.
He contended that the chief executive had used his powers conferred on him through the Proclamation of Emergency Order of 1999, and all such orders issued under such authority had been given a legal protection. These orders did not require the NA’s validation, he added.
Justice Tassaduq Husain Jilani, a senior member of the bench, pointed out that this ordinance had been issued by the president and not by the chief executive. Even in this case, the same argument would hold good because both the offices were being held by one person, who was authorized to use his authority under either of the office, the NAB counsel replied.
If it was not to be validated by the national assembly, where should the court reckon the promulgation of this ordinance from, Justice Jilani inquired from the counsel, who submitted that this law would be presumed to have been promulgated on Nov 23, 2002, since it still stood as a valid law without requiring any validation from parliament.
Mr Malik argued that only those ordinances, which had been issued by the president after the issuance of the Restoration of Democracy Order 2003, needed validation within 120 days from the legislature in case of the federal laws. While the provincial laws needed to be presented for validation within 90 days following their promulgation.
While touching the argument of the petitioner regarding the conversion of his revision appeal into a petition, the NAB counsel submitted that court should not allow it because none of the parameters laid out for such conversion were applicable in this case.
Rebutting the NAB counsel’s arguments, petitioner’s counsel Sheikh Ziaullah argued that the amended ordinance was required to be presented in the National Assembly within four months after the election of parliament, and not four months following the issuance of the Restoration of Democracy Order 2003.
The court ruled that Article 270-AA provided a cover to all the orders passed by the president, and none of those laws required validation from parliament. However, the court issued notice to the state counsel for assisting it on this issue and adjourned the proceedings.