NAB amendments case: Blow to Imran Khan as SC rules in favour of govt

ISLAMABAD
In a major victory for the incumbent government, the Supreme Court on Friday accepted intra-court appeals filed against the September 15, 2023, majority judgement striking down the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).
A larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faiz Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi announced the unanimous verdict.
Approving the intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments, the apex court remarked that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan could not prove that NAB amendments were unconstitutional.
The five-member bench reserved the verdict on June 6 on multiple appeals against the apex court’s September 15 verdict which was announced by then-CJP Umar Ata Bandial.
In the intra-party appeals, the top anti-graft body and the PTI founder were made respondents.
The majority judegment had struck down some amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999.
The amendments — National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022 — were passed in a joint sitting of the parliament in April 2022 during the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government which came into power after ousting ex-premier Khan via a no-trust move in 2022.
It modified sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 25 and 26 of the NAB laws, however, 9 out of 10 amendments were declared “null and void” by the CJP Bandial-led bench on the PTI founder’s petition filed in June 2022.

The order
Referring to the September 15 ruling, the court today pointed out that the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 — which required that a plea must be heard by “not less than five judges of the SC” — was enacted while Khan’s petition was pending adjudication.
The top court noted that the petition challenging the amendments made to the Ordinance was not heard and decided in accordance with the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act — hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.
“If the provisions of the Act had been followed the Petition may have been decided differently [….] These [intra-court] appeals could justifiably be allowed on the ground that since the Petition was not heard and decided as required by the Act by a five-member bench the impugned judgement is coram non-judice and a nullity in law,” it added.
Furthermore, the five-member bench’s judgement today also pointed out that last year’s ruling did not demonstrate how the amendments violated or infringed any of the fundamental rights provisioned under Articles 14, 23 and 25 of the Constitution.
“Petition and the impugned judgement failed to establish that the Amendments were unconstitutional, nor have we been so persuaded in this regard,” the apex court noted, adding that the larger bench wasn’t persuaded by Khan and learned Senior Advocate Khawaja Haris Ahmed that the amendments violated the Constitution.
“We allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgement,” reads the SC order.