Current Govt's Legislation Lacks Legitimacy: CJ Bandial

Current Govt's Legislation Lacks Legitimacy: CJ Bandial
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the appeal filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan against the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments and observed that the current Parliament was deliberately kept incomplete and legislation passed by the Parliament was becoming controversial.

The case was heard by a three-member special bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

While referring to general elections, the chief justice stated that the solution to all problems being faced by the country was possible through the decision of the nation.

The chief justice remarked that it has been eight months since the incumbent government have taken charge and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had said it would be ready to conduct elections in November 2022.

Chief Justice Bandial maintained that the current Parliament was deliberately kept incomplete due to which legislation passed by the Parliament was becoming controversial.

During the hearing, the federal government’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan continued his arguments. He said that the apex court should be careful of Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.

The chief justice maintained that the facts of the present case were different and that the chief of the country's largest political party (PTI) had challenged the NAB amendments.

The chief justice said that the court did not want to interfere in legislation and mentioned that the court did not take automatic notice, but a plea came forth against the NAB amendments”.

He said that the rule of an honest prime minister was abolished under Article 58(2)(B) of the Constitution which was a “draconian” law.

Justice Bandial stated that now that Imran Khan was not in the assembly, legislation such as NAB amendments were becoming controversial. The chief justice concluded that in the ongoing case, Imran’s right to the claim did not matter.