[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Thursday resumed hearing a case about changes in accountability laws, with the bench deciding not to live-stream the proceedings in a 4-1 ruling.
A five-member bench — headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Athar Minallah, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi — resumed hearing the case.
The last hearing had turned out anticlimactic as ex-premier Imran Khan had appeared via video link but did not get a chance to speak as a petitioner in the matter.
Earlier this month, the SC had ordered the federal and Punjab governments to facilitate Imran’s appearance before the court via video link from Adiala jail, where he is currently incarcerated.
While the May 14 hearing had been broadcast live, the last one was not, with the reason remaining unclear.
As per the court orders at the last hearing, Imran again appeared via video link today.
If live-streamed, this would be Imran’s first public appearance since his arrest from Zaman Park in August last year in the Toshakhana case despite reservations expressed by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar about the SC’s directives.
Soon after the hearing began, the bench introduced a short break in the proceedings, retiring to mull whether to live-stream the hearing or not. “We will let you know in a bit about live-streaming the case,” the court said.
Justice Minallah — who had earlier stated that the top court could not deny an audience to the ex-premier if he wished to appear before it for the case —
expressed his support for the live stream.
“If the case used to be broadcast live earlier, it should be live-streamed today as well,” he observed.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa attorney general said the case pertained to public interest, to which CJP Isa replied, “This is a technical case; there is no affair of public interest in it.”
The apex court is seized with a number of intra-court appeals (ICAs) moved by the federal government as well as by a private citizen Zuhair Ahmed Siddiqui, who was an accused in a corruption case but not a party to the challenges to the NAB amendments case.
During the previous hearing, Justice Isa had expressed his dismay over the main case against the amendments being prolonged to 53 hearings. He also questioned the suspension of the now-in-effect Practice and Procedures Act, which clipped the CJP’s powers.
The NAB laws case
In 2022, amendments were made to the country’s accountability laws by the then-Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government.
The amendments made several changes to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, including reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, limiting NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving over Rs500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to the relevant authorities.
Subsequently, Imran had moved the apex court against the amendments, claiming that the changes to the NAB law were made to benefit the influential accused persons and legitimise corruption.
The petition had pleaded that the fresh amendments tend to scrap corruption cases against the president, prime minister, chief ministers and ministers and provide an opportunity to the convicted public office-holders to get their convictions undone.
In September last year, after 53 hearings, the SC announced its 2-1 verdict, ordering the restoration of corruption cases against public office holders that were withdrawn due to the amendments and declaring Imran’s plea to be maintainable.
The next month, a five-judge SC bench took up ICAs against its Sept 15 judgment and stopped accountability courts from issuing a final verdict in graft cases.
In a subsequent hearing, CJP Isa had hinted that the proceedings could be started afresh if the counsel managed to “make a solid case” for the same, as earlier proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
It then resumed hearing the ICAs on May 14, ordering authorities to ensure Imran’s presence before the apex court via video link as he was a petitioner in the case.
More to follow
[ad_2]
Source link
