NAB Amendments Case, Reasons for reference withdrawal indicates direction of law: CJP

Islamabad: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial Tuesday remarked in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments case that the reasons for the withdrawal of the reference indicate that the direction of the law.

According to details, a three-member bench headed by CJP Umar Atta Bandial comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is hearing Imran Khan's petition against the NAB amendments.

At the beginning of hearing, Justice Mansoor asked about the presence of Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan. On this, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman said that Attorney General is abroad, I will submit his reply.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice spoke to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman's lawyer, Khawaja Haris, saying, “Have you read the NAB report”?

CJP further stated NAB has given the reasons for the references returned till May which indicate that law is leaning towards which direction. All the references of the people returned till May have come on record.

He continued to say that an amendment in section 23 of the NAB law came in May and the other in June. References returned before May are still with NAB. Who will answer these questions on behalf of NAB?

The Chief Justice inquired whether there is any provision in these amendments under which the cases should be referred to other forums. After these amendments, much of NAB's work has ended.

Khawaja Haris replied: “NAB does not have any legal authority to send cases to other institutions”.

Justice Mansoor remarked that it is not the case that cases should end with NAB and the accused go home. There is no need of law to send the cases to other forums, the cases that have been made will go to some forum.

Mansoor Ali further said: “There is no immunity for the judges of the higher judiciary in the NAB law, under Article 209 only a judge can be dismissed and recovery is not possible”.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that whether the state assets are a source of corruption, smuggling or illegal transfer of capital, action should be taken. It is disappointing that these crimes are not clearly defined in the law. It is the responsibility of the state to make the people prosperous and safe.