A five-member bench of the Supreme Court on Friday accepted the intra-court appeals filed by the federal government against a three-member bench’s majority judgment striking down amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), saying the respondent had failed to prove they were unconstitutional.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faiz Isa and comprising Justices Aminuddin Khan; Jamal Khan Mandukhel; Athar Minallah and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, the unanimous verdict approved the intra-court appeals filed by the federal and provincial governments. It also observed that respondent Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan could not prove that NAB amendments were unconstitutional.
The five-member bench had reserved its verdict on June 6 after five hearings into appeals against the Sept. 15 ruling announced by then-CJP Umar Ata Bandial. That 2-1 ruling had struck down nine of 10 amendments made by the government to the NAO, 1999, which were passed by a joint sitting of Parliament in April 2022.
In its order, the five-member larger bench noted that Parliament had passed the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 while Khan’s original petition was pending adjudication. Under the Act, any plea pertaining to constitutional matters must be heard by “not less than five judges of the SC.” However, it observed, the hearings and decision of the case were not in accordance with 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.
Today’s judgment also noted 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,” it said, adding the larger bench wasn’t persuaded by Khan and his lawyer’s arguments regarding amendments to the Constitution.
“We allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgement,” it added.
In an additional note, Justice Minallah said that while he concurred with the majority judgment, he did not believe the appeal filed by the federal government was in compliance with the Practice and Procedure Act.