NAB amendments case

The NAB Amendments Case refers to a significant legal case in Pakistan involving amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws. The case has been heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and has involved several key figures, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

NAB Amendments Case
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
DecidedReserved as of June 6, 2024
Case opinions
DissentJustice Athar Minallah
Laws applied
National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 2002
Keywords
NAB, Imran Khan, Supreme Court, Pakistan, amendments

Background

The case revolves around the amendments made to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 2002.[1] These amendments were challenged by Imran Khan, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling in September 2023 by a majority of 2-1 declaring the amendments unconstitutional.[2] The court ordered the reopening of all corruption cases worth less than Rs 500 million which were earlier closed against political leaders and public officials of various parties.[3][4]

Court proceedings

As of 6 June 2024, the Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the federal government's petition seeking a review of the judgment against the amendments to the NAB rules.[5][6] The Supreme Court heard the Federal Government's Intra Court Appeal (ICA) against the majority verdict.[7] The proceedings were conducted through video link, Imran Khan appeared from Adiala Jail.[7][8] The court reserved its decision on the government's appeals against the annulment of the amendments in the NAB rules.[1][3]

Imran Khan's arguments

Imran Khan, who challenged the amendments, attended the hearing through video link from Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail and completed his arguments. He said that the amendments in NAB would make it easier for them, but stressed that the country's insolvency should be removed.[2]

Dissenting note

Justice Athar Minallah issued a dissenting note on the decision not to telecast the NAB amendment case live. In his 13-page dissenting note, he wrote that live broadcasting of the case is necessary to protect fundamental rights.[9][10]

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.