pThe Supreme Court of Pakistan has allowed intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, effectively restoring the amendments made to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws. In a detailed 16-page judgment authored by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, the court ruled that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan failed to prove that the amendments were unconstitutional.
Background of the Case
The amendments to the NAB laws had been a matter of significant controversy since they were enacted. Initially implemented in 2022, these changes were seen by critics as a way to dilute the accountability process, especially for politicians and public officials accused of corruption. Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister, filed a petition challenging the amendments, claiming that they were unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights of the citizens.
However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision has overturned these objections, reinstating the amendments and dismissing Khan’s challenge.
Historical Context
In its judgment, the Supreme Court reflected on the origins of the NAB law, dating back to the era of former army chief General Pervez Musharraf, who came to power through a military coup in 1999. The judgment noted that Musharraf had introduced the NAB law just 34 days after seizing power, primarily to consolidate his rule. The court highlighted that the NAB law was used not just for curbing corruption but also as a tool for political engineering and revenge.
The court further criticized Musharraf for removing Supreme Court judges who did not support his unconstitutional actions, stressing the importance of maintaining a clear separation between the judiciary and legislature. The judgment emphasized that each institution must operate within its constitutional boundaries and avoid interfering with the functions of the other.
The Role of Parliament and Judiciary
The judgment elaborated on the constitutional roles of both the judiciary and the parliament, underlining that it is the responsibility of the parliament to enact laws, while the judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply those laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that judges are not the “gatekeepers” of parliament and should be cautious about overstepping their mandate.
The ruling explained that unless a law is explicitly declared unconstitutional, it should be respected by all courts. The decision further added that if a law allows for multiple interpretations, the interpretation that supports the validity of the law should be upheld. In this case, the amendments to the NAB law were not found to be in conflict with the constitution, and thus, the court restored them.
The NAB Amendments and Their Legal Context
The Supreme Court examined three separate amendments made to the NAB Act. The first amendment was enacted on June 22, 2022, followed by the second on August 22, 2022, and the third on May 29, 2023. The third amendment, in particular, came after six hearings of the case had already been held.
Despite the timeline of these amendments, the court did not find any of them to be unconstitutional or in violation of fundamental rights. The judgment clarified that the third amendment was not reviewed in detail as part of this decision, but the overall legislative intent of the amendments was preserved.
The judgment also highlighted the importance of judicial restraint, noting that the judiciary should avoid prematurely striking down legislation. The decision affirmed that the role of the judiciary is to uphold laws enacted by parliament, unless they are clearly proven to be in violation of the constitution.
Imran Khan’s Petition and Legal Arguments
The court’s decision was critical of the arguments presented by Imran Khan and his legal team, led by senior lawyer Khawaja Haris. The court noted that Khan’s petition did not convincingly demonstrate how the NAB amendments violated fundamental rights. The judgment stated that Khan’s application lacked good faith, as many of the amendments he now opposed were introduced during his own tenure as Prime Minister.
According to the judgment, Khan’s legal team failed to satisfy the court that the amendments were unconstitutional. The petition did not provide clear evidence or reasoning to show how the amendments conflicted with the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.
Separation of Powers and Constitutional Boundaries
In a key part of its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature. The court stressed that the constitution does not permit judges to evaluate laws based on their personal standards or opinions. Instead, judges are bound by the constitution and must apply the law as it is written.
The judgment further criticized a previous bench led by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial for suspending the Practice and Procedure Act without providing a thorough review. The court noted that the suspension of the law had delayed the hearing of the case by 100 days, but the petitions against the law were finally heard on September 18, 2023.
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant turning point in the ongoing legal battles over the NAB laws. By restoring the amendments and dismissing Imran Khan’s petition, the court has reaffirmed the authority of parliament to enact legislation, while emphasizing the judiciary’s role in interpreting rather than invalidating laws. This decision also underscores the need for judicial restraint and a clear separation of powers between institutions, as enshrined in Pakistan’s constitution.
