Musharraf rejected constitutional system, used NAB for political purposes: SN

The Supreme Court has published a detailed 16-page written judgment in the government’s internal appeal seeking to set aside amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Act.

The decision, authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, reverses the previous ruling of a two-judge bench and restores the amendments made by the NAB.

The verdict delves into the history of the NAB law, saying it was enacted by former army chief General Pervez Musharraf just 34 days after he took power by force. The court said Musharraf had rejected the constitutional democratic system and used the law for his own political purposes.

The decision said Musharraf had removed Supreme Court judges who opposed his unconstitutional actions.

Justice Athar Minallah also submitted a supplementary note in which he agreed with the ruling of Chief Justice Isa. He noted that the government’s appeal was not allowed under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, emphasising that appeals from aggrieved parties are allowed.

He declared that the earlier decision which had invalidated the amendments to the NAB Act was null and void, further emphasising that no exemptions to the NAB provisions should be made available to judges or military officers.

The Supreme Court stressed that the roles of the judiciary and the legislature in the Constitution are clear and they must be very careful not to interfere in the jurisdiction of the other. It reminded both branches to serve the people within the scope of their duties as stipulated in the Constitution. The court also reiterated that the judiciary, including the Chief Justice, is not the “guardian” of Parliament.

The court noted that the primary intention of the NAB law, as per the preamble drafted during the Musharraf era, was to curb corruption. However, the court noted that it was being used for political revenge and engineering as politicians who supported Musharraf were often acquitted.

Also read: Supreme Court Reinstates NAB Amendments, Accepts Government’s Intra-Judicial Appeal

“The main objective of the NAB Act was political revenge against politicians or political engineering,” the ruling noted.

It was further stated that three significant changes were introduced to the NAB Act:

– The first amendment was passed on June 22, 2022.
– The second amendment was introduced on August 22, 2022.
– The third amendment was passed on May 29, 2023, while the court had already held six hearings in the case against the amendments to the NAB Act.

The court did not provide a detailed analysis of the Third Amendment, but emphasized that it should preserve the legislation, not hastily invalidate it. It also explained that if a law allows for two interpretations, the one that favors the validity of the law will be upheld.

“The petition of the founder of PTI and the previous ruling of the Supreme Court were not in line with the Constitution,” the ruling stated, adding that in this case too the court could not be convinced of the unconstitutionality of the amendments.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the PTI founder, stating that the petition was not filed in good faith. It also stressed that many of these amendments were initiated by Imran Khan himself.

He noted that the Practice and Procedure Act was enacted five months before the NAB Amendments Act decision. The Supreme Court had then rejected the plea seeking the constitution of a five-judge bench to hear the petitions against the amendments. “Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has directed that a five-judge bench should be constituted in the NAB Amendments Act case. If Justice Shah recuses himself from the bench, then the two-judge bench would not be able to hear and decide the petitions against the NAB Amendments Act,” the Supreme Court said.

It was also mentioned that the hearings on the Practice and Procedures Act were adjourned for 100 days and then resumed on September 18, 2023.

In its closing argument, the court reiterated that the NAB Act had been used for political purposes and confirmed that its amendments should remain in force, effectively restoring the government’s previous actions in relation to the Act.