This magazine has criticised the way the National Accountability Ordinance revisions had been enacted when they were made last year. The National Accountability Ordinance is a hated and faulty statute that has been the misery of many public representatives.
The PDM government gave its leaders general respite by destroying the accountability rules under which they were being tried by capitalising on the fact that the main political party in the nation was not represented in the National Assembly.
To be clear, our paper had long shared the opinion of the majority that Pakistan’s accountability rules needed to be drastically changed. It had, however, objected to how the’reforms’ were ultimately carried out in a self-serving manner. Most people had come to the conclusion that the PDM government had no interest in enhancing the country’s accountability system and was only interested in ‘changing’ the law to favour some political figures.
But did this call for what has been perceived as yet another Supreme Court intrusion into the affairs of Parliament? Is former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s most recent decision, which invalidated many of the National Accountability Ordinance’s revisions, justified in this context?
Some do, particularly since they consider the modifications to have been enacted by a “illegitimate” legislature, which virtually destroyed the nation’s entire accountability system for the sake of particular goals.
As you may remember, our newspaper also forewarned the PDM administration last year. If such a system had been in place, perhaps the court would not have chosen to reinstate the original NAB statute and the accusations that our political leaders had been trying to avoid. But this is a different discussion.
Reverting to the original query, it is challenging to disagree with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the case’s dissenting judge, who believes that the court exceeded its authority in reaching its decision. In his dissenting statement, Justice Shah noted that “Parliament can undo what it has done.”
Recall that the PTI’s decision to resign from the legislature was what made it possible for these measures to be passed without opposition. In the same vein, it should have assumed responsibility for it as aIf such a system had been in place, perhaps the court would not have chosen to reinstate the original NAB statute and the accusations that our political leaders had been trying to avoid. But this is a different discussion.
Reverting to the original query, it is challenging to disagree with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the case’s dissenting judge, who believes that the court exceeded its authority in reaching its decision. In his dissenting statement, Justice Shah noted that “Parliament can undo what it has done.”
Recall that the PTI’s decision to resign from the legislature was what made it possible for these measures to be passed without opposition. In the same vein, it should have assumed responsibility for it as a
