ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,.
Hasnaat Maik
September 10, 2023
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) has contended that National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999—the law that governs the country’s top anti-graft watchdog, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)—is not applicable to the superior courts judges and armed forces personnel.
"As the Constitution of Pakistan provides for a comprehensive mechanism regarding the accountability of the superior judiciary; hence inclusion of the superior judiciary within the purview of the definition of “public officeholder” under the NAB amendments would be irrational," said a concise statement.
AGP Mansoor Awan submitted this concise statement to the Supreme Court in connection with a case regarding amendments to the NAO, 1999 introduced by the last PML-N led coalition government.
The statement said under Article 209 of the Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is mandated with the duty of regulating cases of misconduct and discipline pertaining to the superior judiciary.
"The SJC comprises the Chief Justice [of Pakistan], two senior most justices of the Supreme Court and two senior most Chief Justices of the high courts.
“The composition of the council with members of such high standing and intellect shows the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised or eroded,” it said.
Referring to the Khan Asfandyar Wali v Federation of Pakistan case, it said the SC in its ruling in that case noted with approval its observation in the Zafar Ali Shah case that “the judges of the 23 superior courts are not immune from accountability. They are accountable only in the manner laid down under Article 209 of the Constitution”.
The AGP said the exclusion of the members of armed forces from the purview of NAB was also considered in the Khan Asfandyar Wali case, adding that this exclusion does not mean that the members of armed forces are immune from accountability.
“The Pakistan Army Act, 1952 as well as the Pakistan Army Rules, 1954 are self-contained codes, which provide for prosecution and punishment in cases involving corruption, corrupt practices and illegal gratification and for matter connected therewith and incidental thereto.
“The court also noticed the various punishments of imprisonment provided under the army act. The said judgment is the law of the land and binding with full force," it said.
Imran’s petition
The AGP also raised serious questions about maintainability of the petition filed against the amendments to the NAO, 1999 by former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
He also said the main thrust of the petitioner’s argument in support of his petition is that the amendment has resulted in diminishing the process of accountability of the chosen representatives, who hold office in trust as trustees for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.
"On the one hand, the petitioner may be right in asserting that chosen representatives are trustees and hold their office in trust for the benefit of the people and for this reason asserts higher threshold for their accountability but on the other hand petitioner himself, wilfully flouted the trust by abandoning the parliament and forcing his party members to resign from the seats of the National Assembly.
"By doing so, knowingly, the petitioner left the majority of the country unrepresented in the National Assembly and thereby violated the very trust for which he wants others to be accountable for"
"The petitioner represents members of his constituency and by virtue of his oath owed them a duty of representation by debating legislation and providing correction where a bill derogated from fundamental rights.
"To the contrary, the petitioner instead chose to abandon the parliament therefore, stifling and muting the voice of those on whom he relied for strength and earned a place at the parliament.
“It is therefore oxymoronic to say the least for the petitioner to now assume a position of a vigilante fixated on ensuring the fundamental rights of the people whom he chose to abandon in the parliament.
"Owing to the contradictory conduct of the petitioner, the instant petition is driven and premised on ulterior motives that only serve the petitioner’s singular ambitions and therefore, disentitles him to any extraordinary relief by this Hon’ble Court."
Premature listing of case
The AGP stated that pursuant to the enactment of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the constitutional validity of which remains under challenge before this Supreme Court, the listing of the instant constitution petition is premature.
"The instant petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 184(3), and therefore presents itself as a matter of constitutional significance, being the exact issues the said act, 2023 sought to structure and regulate…
“Therefore till such time that the fate of the said act is pending, assumption and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) ought to be temporarily avoided."
The statement stated many laws are passed by the legislature each year and if the person affected thereby start bringing the challenge to the validity of such laws and any amendment made thereto before this court in its original jurisdiction, the roster of the Court will be choked.
"A petition under Article 199 of the Constitution on the same subject matter is already sub judice before the Hon’ble Islamabad High Court and as such it is submitted that the present petition is not maintainable"
tribune.com.pk
‘NAB law doesn’t apply to judges, armed forces’
AGP submits concise statement in with regard to NAO, 1999 amendment caseHasnaat Maik
September 10, 2023
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) has contended that National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999—the law that governs the country’s top anti-graft watchdog, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)—is not applicable to the superior courts judges and armed forces personnel.
"As the Constitution of Pakistan provides for a comprehensive mechanism regarding the accountability of the superior judiciary; hence inclusion of the superior judiciary within the purview of the definition of “public officeholder” under the NAB amendments would be irrational," said a concise statement.
AGP Mansoor Awan submitted this concise statement to the Supreme Court in connection with a case regarding amendments to the NAO, 1999 introduced by the last PML-N led coalition government.
The statement said under Article 209 of the Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) is mandated with the duty of regulating cases of misconduct and discipline pertaining to the superior judiciary.
"The SJC comprises the Chief Justice [of Pakistan], two senior most justices of the Supreme Court and two senior most Chief Justices of the high courts.
“The composition of the council with members of such high standing and intellect shows the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to ensure that independence of judiciary is not compromised or eroded,” it said.
Referring to the Khan Asfandyar Wali v Federation of Pakistan case, it said the SC in its ruling in that case noted with approval its observation in the Zafar Ali Shah case that “the judges of the 23 superior courts are not immune from accountability. They are accountable only in the manner laid down under Article 209 of the Constitution”.
The AGP said the exclusion of the members of armed forces from the purview of NAB was also considered in the Khan Asfandyar Wali case, adding that this exclusion does not mean that the members of armed forces are immune from accountability.
“The Pakistan Army Act, 1952 as well as the Pakistan Army Rules, 1954 are self-contained codes, which provide for prosecution and punishment in cases involving corruption, corrupt practices and illegal gratification and for matter connected therewith and incidental thereto.
“The court also noticed the various punishments of imprisonment provided under the army act. The said judgment is the law of the land and binding with full force," it said.
Imran’s petition
The AGP also raised serious questions about maintainability of the petition filed against the amendments to the NAO, 1999 by former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
He also said the main thrust of the petitioner’s argument in support of his petition is that the amendment has resulted in diminishing the process of accountability of the chosen representatives, who hold office in trust as trustees for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.
"On the one hand, the petitioner may be right in asserting that chosen representatives are trustees and hold their office in trust for the benefit of the people and for this reason asserts higher threshold for their accountability but on the other hand petitioner himself, wilfully flouted the trust by abandoning the parliament and forcing his party members to resign from the seats of the National Assembly.
"By doing so, knowingly, the petitioner left the majority of the country unrepresented in the National Assembly and thereby violated the very trust for which he wants others to be accountable for"
"The petitioner represents members of his constituency and by virtue of his oath owed them a duty of representation by debating legislation and providing correction where a bill derogated from fundamental rights.
"To the contrary, the petitioner instead chose to abandon the parliament therefore, stifling and muting the voice of those on whom he relied for strength and earned a place at the parliament.
“It is therefore oxymoronic to say the least for the petitioner to now assume a position of a vigilante fixated on ensuring the fundamental rights of the people whom he chose to abandon in the parliament.
"Owing to the contradictory conduct of the petitioner, the instant petition is driven and premised on ulterior motives that only serve the petitioner’s singular ambitions and therefore, disentitles him to any extraordinary relief by this Hon’ble Court."
Premature listing of case
The AGP stated that pursuant to the enactment of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the constitutional validity of which remains under challenge before this Supreme Court, the listing of the instant constitution petition is premature.
"The instant petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 184(3), and therefore presents itself as a matter of constitutional significance, being the exact issues the said act, 2023 sought to structure and regulate…
“Therefore till such time that the fate of the said act is pending, assumption and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) ought to be temporarily avoided."
The statement stated many laws are passed by the legislature each year and if the person affected thereby start bringing the challenge to the validity of such laws and any amendment made thereto before this court in its original jurisdiction, the roster of the Court will be choked.
"A petition under Article 199 of the Constitution on the same subject matter is already sub judice before the Hon’ble Islamabad High Court and as such it is submitted that the present petition is not maintainable"
‘NAB law doesn’t apply to judges, armed forces’ | The Express Tribune
AGP submits concise statement in with regard to NAO, 1999 amendment case
tribune.com.pk
