This magazine criticized the way the National Accountability Act reviews were enacted when they were conducted last year. The National Accountability Act is an abhorrent and flawed law that has been a misery for many public sector representatives.
The PDM government gave its leaders a public respite by destroying the rules of accountability under which they were being tried by taking advantage of the fact that the country’s main political party was not represented in the National Assembly.
To be clear, our paper has long shared the majority view that Pakistan’s rules of accountability need to be fundamentally changed. However, it took issue with how the “reforms” were ultimately implemented in a self-serving manner. Most people came to the conclusion that the PDM government had no interest in strengthening the accountability system in the country and was only interested in “changing” the law to favor some political figures.
But does this warrant what is seen as another intervention of the Supreme Court in the affairs of Parliament? Is the recent decision by former Chief Justice Omar Atta Bandial, which invalidated several revisions to the National Accountability Act, justified in this context?
Some do so, especially since they consider that the amendments were approved by an “illegitimate” legislative body, which effectively led to the destruction of the entire accountability system in the country for the sake of certain goals.
As you may recall, our newspaper also warned the PDM administration last year. If such a system had existed, the Court might not have chosen to reinstate the original NAB law and the charges that our political leaders were trying to avoid. But that’s a different discussion.
Returning to the original question, it is difficult to disagree with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the dissenting judge in the case, who believes the court exceeded its authority in reaching its decision. In his dissenting statement, Justice Shah noted that “Parliament can undo what it has done.”
Remember, it was PTI’s decision to resign from the legislature that made it possible for these measures to be passed unopposed. By the same token, it should have been held accountable for this, because if such a system had existed, the court might not have chosen to reinstate the original NAB law and the charges that our political leaders were trying to avoid. But that’s a different discussion.
Returning to the original question, it is difficult to disagree with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the dissenting judge in the case, who believes the court exceeded its authority in reaching its decision. In his dissenting statement, Justice Shah noted that “Parliament can undo what it has done.”
Remember, it was PTI’s decision to resign from the legislature that made it possible for these measures to be passed unopposed. In the same context, she should have shouldered her responsibility as…
