Corruption destroyed society,CJP Bandial
Supreme Court upholds decision to hold Punjab Assembly elections on May 14,
ISLAMABAD – Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has expressed concern over the closure of Rs490 million corruption cases by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the chief justice, heard the case regarding the NAB amendments on Thursday.
During the hearing, Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that there were issues regarding the retrospective application of the NAB amendments.
He pointed out that there was no prohibition in the Constitution against the retrospective application of legislation.
The chief justice of Pakistan questioned why the amnesty scheme was exempted from the NAB Ordinance.
Furthermore, he requested arguments related to the NAB amendments concerning references against benamidar (unnamed) accounts.
The definition of benamidar has been changed in the NAB amendments, and now it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove whether benami property was created through corruption.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, referring to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s decision in the Khurshid Shah case, emphasised that not every unnamed (benamidar) transaction was a corrupt transaction. He stated that if allegations of corruption were being made, the prosecution must provide evidence to prove the corruption.
The chief justice added that it was essential to determine whether the accused’s source of income was consistent with his assets. If the source of income is unknown, it cannot be proven as a crime.
Another concern raised during the hearing was the transparency of the plea bargain process for cases involving amounts less than Rs500 million. The chief justice remarked that it’s alarming that individuals involved in Rs490 million could escape punishment from the NAB.
Makhdoom Ali Khan explained that the limit of Rs500 million was set for NAB cases based on observations from various superior courts.
The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow (Friday).
Earlier,
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld its decision to hold the Punjab Assembly elections on May 14, and dismissed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s review petition against the verdict.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, heard the application.
During the hearing, the counsel for the election commission said that after looking at the situation after May 9, they decided that elections could not be held on May 14. The CJP remarked that the court had said they could not take this decision themselves.
“The court gave you a very clear way. After this, what other option did you hav?” the CJP questioned.
CJP Bandial further told the lawyer of the ECP that the court understood his point that he did not understand the decision.
Justice Akhtar remarked that the Constitution is related to the people of Pakistan, and elections could not be delayed. The Constitution is not someone’s property that can be violated at any time.
The election commission lawyer said it was wrong to remark that the ECP does not have the authority to postpone elections.
At this, Justice Akhtar asked the counsel to read out the verdict and identify any mistakes in it.
“We are not trying to convince you that there were no mistakes in the decision. Show us from the record what is wrong with the court decision.”
Justice Ahsan asked if the commission can also say they were not in a position to hold elections for five years? How did you conclude that you can justify not holding elections, he asked further.
Justice Akhtar remarked that the commission had said several times they could hold the elections if security and budget were provided. He asked the ECP to identify the mistakes that need to be reviewed.
The verdict could be wrong in your view but the court interpreted the Constitution.
The Supreme Court then dismissed the election commission’s review petition related to the elections in Punjab and CJP Bandial remarked that the court will intervene whenever there is a constitutional violation.