A recent judgment by the Supreme Court declaring the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) illegal has faced a challenge through a review petition filed by a citizen who was directly affected by the verdict. This development comes soon after the government’s decision to appeal the said judgment.
The review petition, filed by PPP Senator Farooq H. Naek on behalf of Abdul Jabbar, argues that the citizen was not party to the initial litigation round nor associated with any political party. However, he was directly affected by the NAB amendment judgement due to an ongoing accountability reference against him.
While the caretaker government had already expressed its intention to appeal the September 15 decision, Abdul Jabbar’s petition questions the jurisdiction of the apex court based on Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The petition contends that the conditions to exercise this original jurisdiction were not fulfilled during the NAB amendment case.
The petition further argues that the judgment failed to consider the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy and the established principles for striking down legislation. It also asserts that the amendments brought about by the parliament did not take away any offenses from the grip of the law but rather streamlined the process.
Moreover, the petition contends that the Supreme Court assumed the roles of a legislator and policy maker, going beyond its powers. The judgment is deemed contradictory and based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.
The review petition calls for setting aside the September 15 verdict and upholding the parliament’s authority in enacting and amending the National Accountability Ordinance.
Overall, this challenge to the Supreme Court verdict on NAB amendments questions the court’s jurisdiction and its impact on the legislative powers of the parliament.