Govt Asks SC To Reject Imran's 'Political Petition' Against NAB Amendments.

ISLAMABAD -- The federal government on Thursday requested the Supreme Court of Pakistan to dismiss Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan's petition against amendments made to the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance.

A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard Imran Khan's petition against the amendments in the NAB Act. During the course of proceedings, Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan counsel for the federal government pleaded that the amended petition had been submitted and it would be better to notify him so that a reply would also come.

The court also accepted Imran Khan's request for preliminary hearing against the new amendments.

Imran's lawyer Khawaja Harris said that it was impossible to prove the crime of assets in excess of income. After the amendment, action could only be taken on proving assets from corruption money.

The Chief Justice remarked that it is a fact that people do not declare full assets and income in tax returns, to which Khawaja Harris said that non-disclosure of income or assets, was not a crime under NAB law, and that undisclosed income did not have to be illegal.

The government requested the court to dismiss the petition and objected to its admissibility. The government, in its reply, stated that the petition raised a political issue of public importance, not a legal one.

It also claimed that the petition did not articulate in clear and unambiguous terms how any provisions of the Amendment Act were repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution, and was of ambiguous nature.

The government response further stated that the former premier was not the party affected by the NAB amendments nor was his application in good faith. It highlighted that the SC had declared that it would not interfere in political matters. Imran Khan himself had been making similar amendments during his reign through ordinances, it added.

'The petitioner lacks both locus standi and bonafide. Amendments of similar...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT