SC rules live-streaming of NAB amendment case can be misused politically

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Saturday issued a detailed verdict explaining its earlier decision to reject the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government's request for live-streaming the hearing on NAB amendments.

The top court’s order clarified that the plea was denied as it was not a matter of public interest.

The Supreme Court raised concerns that broadcasting proceedings involving politicians could be exploited for political gains.

The court emphasized that not every case is suitable for live-streaming, which was a significant factor in the dismissal of the application. This concern was validated during the hearing on May 30, 2024, when Imran Khan, founder of PTI, brought up unrelated issues such as other cases, the general elections held on February 8, 2023, a commission of inquiry, and his incarceration. The court noted that such diversions could hinder the proper administration of justice.

A five-member larger bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Athar Minallah, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, presided over the case. The petition for live-streaming was rejected by a 4-1 majority, with Justice Athar Minallah dissenting.

Imran Khan had earlier challenged the NAB amendments in the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, he participated via video link from Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi, where he is currently incarcerated. His request for a personal appearance in the case remains pending with the court. Khan informed Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa about the difficulties he faced in obtaining legal assistance and preparing for the case, citing solitary confinement and lack of facilities.

The amendments to the NAB Ordinance 1999 reduced the terms of the bureau’s chairman and the prosecutor general from four years to three years and excluded all regulatory bodies from NAB’s jurisdiction. The amended law also set the term for accountability court judges at three years and required courts to decide cases within one year.

Imran Khan's petition argued that the amendments were unconstitutional, claiming that changes to sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 25, and 26 of the NAB law violated the constitution, as did amendments to sections 14, 15, 21, and 23. He contended that these amendments infringed upon fundamental rights under articles 9, 14, 19, 24, and 25.