Soon, the SC will deliver a "short and sweet" decision in the NAB amendments case: CJP

 The Supreme Court has yet to rule on a petition contesting changes to the accountability laws.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial. — Supreme Court 

Imran Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), filed a petition on Tuesday challenging changes to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws, and the Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred a decision.

The petition contesting the changes made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 by the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government was heard by a three-member apex court bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and consisting of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.

CJP Bandial said: "My retirement is near, [we] will give a decision before retirement." as he announced that the verdict had been reserved. 

Justice Qazi Faez Issa will succeed the CJP when he retires on September 16 of this month.

The associate attorney general apologized to the court on behalf of the AGP for missing the court hearing due to an important international visit when he stood before the bench to represent AGP Mansoor Usman Awan.

The PTI legal representative, Khawaja Haris, made his closing arguments before the bench at the beginning of today's session.

CJP Bandial mentioned during his arguments that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had provided its justifications for the references that accountability had returned after changes

The CJP stated, "Action should be taken, whether it be corruption in state assets, smuggling, or illegal transfer of capital," and expressed disappointment that these offences are not explicitly defined by the law.

Justice Mansoor reacted by asking, "Wouldn't it be strange that the state should ask why the punishment was reduced in the amendments of the parliament?"

The CJP questioned whether crimes could be abolished through the retroactive adoption of NAB revisions, wondering what the point of doing so would be.

Justice Mansoor then questioned, "Doesn't parliament have the authority to legislate retroactively?

"Can the Supreme Court inform the Parliament that the law was enacted with malice and cunning?"

He asserted that if the Supreme Court lacked the power to alter parliamentary legislation, it would be forced to do so.

Justice Ahsan argued, however, that not everything can be done by parliament.

According to him, "Parliament cannot end crime by applying an old law."

But Justice Mansoor asked it again: "What part of the Constitution forbids Parliament from passing laws that have retroactive effect?"

It may have been suggested that the statute would be applied retroactively, but that closed cases wouldn't be reopened, CJP Bandial continued.

He remarked, "The NAB law should have been clear," and questioned, "Can a vague law survive?"Can the Supreme Court send laws back to the legislature? This furthers the chief justice's query.

Justice Mansoor stated that the court itself can examine the law if basic rights are impacted; nonetheless, he demanded an explanation of what fundamental right was impacted by the NAB revisions.

"Corruption in public property affects the fundamental right of every citizen of the country," said Justice Ahsan.