KARACHI: An accountability court in its remarks on Wednesday noted that the trial of PPP leader Sharjeel Inam Memon would restart from the very point at which it had stopped.
Memon – who also served as provincial minister in the PPP’s Sindh government in different capacities – had appeared before the court for the hearing of a corruption case allegedly involving an amount of Rs5.75 billion.
The judge rejected the defence’s plea through which they had challenged the accountability court’s jurisdiction under the amended NAB laws and ordered to present the witnesses as well as the accused during the next hearing which is scheduled for October 5.
About the challenging the court’s powers, the judge observed that they had received the Supreme Court’s orders yesterday [Tuesday] which would be implemented.
Last week, the Supreme Court declared null and void amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 laws and restored corruption cases against public office holders, which were abolished under the amended law.
A three-member bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, announced the reserved verdict on PTI chief’s petition challenging the amendments to the law – with 2-1 majority as Justice Mansoor Ali Shah opposed the move.
Justice Shah in his dissenting note noted that the matter was related to the supremacy of Parliament, not of illegal amendments.
“The majority has fallen prey to the unconstitutional objective of a parliamentarian, of transferring a political debate on the purpose and policy of an enactment from the Houses of the Parliament to the courthouse of the Supreme Court.”
“In my humble opinion, the primary question in this case is not about the alleged lopsided amendments introduced in the NAB law by the Parliament but about the paramountcy of the Parliament, a house of the chosen representatives of about 240 million people of Pakistan.”
In the same line of arguments, he further says the basic question is of the limits of unelected judges’ decision making on a law passed by the parliament. Hence, the majority judgment didn’t grasp the powers enjoyed by the parliament.
