Leaving aside the fact that both the Government and the Opposition PTI might benefit from the verdict of the Supreme Court overturning its earlier ruling that nullified amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws, granting intra-court appeals filed by the federal government and other affected parties, the judgement, once again, proved it beyond any doubt that the apex court under Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa is firm on upholding the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers. The court reinstated the changes made to the NAB laws during the previous PDM-led government and overturned the majority decision by former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and retired Justice Ijazul Ahsan, which had nullified the amendments.
In 2022, accountability laws were amended by the then PDM Government and the changes included reduction in terms of the NAB Chairman and Prosecutor General to three years, limiting NAB’s authority to cases involving amounts over Rs500 million and transferring pending investigations and trials to other authorities. PTI founder Imran Khan challenged these amendments in the Supreme Court on the plea that these were aimed at benefiting influential figures and amounted to legitimizing corruption. In September 2023, after 53 hearings, the Supreme Court delivered a 2-1 verdict restoring corruption cases against public officials that were dismissed under the amendments and upheld the maintainability of Imran’s plea. Some legal circles believed the then verdict was motivated by considerations other than merit, law and the Constitution and that it widened the gulf of misunderstanding between two pillars of the state –judiciary and parliament, which has the sole prerogative to legislate. The SC has the power to review laws and interpret them but not the authority to assume the power of legislation. Legal experts, therefore, rightly see the latest verdict as part of the attempts to uphold parliamentary wisdom and the right of legislators to undo what they have previously done. The judgment held that the Constitution had set out respective roles of the legislature and that of the judiciary and every care should be taken to ensure that neither encroaches onto the domain of the other. It adds Constitutional institutions better serve the people when they respect each other and perform the functions respectively granted to them by the Constitution. The case has lessons both for the judiciary and politicians not to see laws through the lens of personal likes and dislikes or personal/party agendas. The Supreme Court is making commendable corrections and hopefully this tradition would be maintained throughout in future.
