In a significant development, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has reinstated the amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) laws, overturning a previous decision by a three-member bench that had nullified these amendments. The Court’s ruling, delivered by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, alongside Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Athar Minallah, and Syed Azhar Hussain Rizvi, dismissed the objections raised by the federal government and other appellants. The NAB Amendments Act of 2022, which was passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate, had substantially narrowed the scope of NAB’s jurisdiction. Key provisions included restricting NAB’s ability to investigate corruption cases involving less than 500 million rupees, confining cases to the accountability courts in the area where the crime occurred, and prohibiting NAB from taking action on federal, provincial, or local tax matters.
Additionally, the amendments limited NAB’s authority to seek assistance from other government agencies in investigations and reduced the maximum remand period from 90 to 30 days, with a provision that investigations into fraud could only proceed if the number of victims exceeded 100. The term of the NAB Chairman and the Bureau’s Prosecutor General was also reduced from four years to three years. These amendments had been challenged in the Supreme Court, where a bench led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial initially declared them unconstitutional. However, the intra-court appeals, filed under the leadership of Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, resulted in the reinstatement of the amendments, effective from yesterday.
The reinstatement of these amendments has revived an ongoing debate about the effectiveness and impartiality of NAB. Historically, the judiciary has frequently expressed dissatisfaction with NAB’s performance, and political leaders have also criticized it for allegedly being used as a tool for political revenge rather than for genuine accountability. Many prominent figures have called for its dissolution, arguing that NAB has been employed to target political opponents and further political agendas. The constitutional role of NAB as an autonomous institution has often been questioned, as its leaders have sometimes appeared to align with government agendas rather than maintaining impartiality. There is a growing consensus that Parliament should conduct a thorough review of NAB’s role to determine if it is fulfilling its mandate for justice or merely serving as a mechanism for political retribution.
The 18th Amendment had granted the NAB Chairman greater powers, yet the practical autonomy of the institution remains in question. Until NAB is truly empowered and its laws are effectively enforced, the institution will struggle to meet the requirements of genuine accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for ongoing scrutiny and reform to ensure that NAB fulfills its role in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness.
#SupremeCourt, #NABAmendments, #NationalAccountabilityBureau, #JudicialRuling, #ChiefJusticeQaziFaizIsa, #NABReinstatement, #AccountabilityLaws, #CorruptionInvestigation, #LegalReforms, #PoliticalAccountability, #JudicialReview, #JusticeUmarAtaBandial, #NABJurisdiction, #PoliticalCriticism, #LegalAmendments, #InstitutionalReform, #ParliamentReview, #18thAmendment, #AccountabilityChallenges, #JusticeAndFairness, #PoliticalTool, #LegalAutonomy
