She Regarded through Imran Khan Appears via Video hyperlinks within the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) amendments case. The case became heard through a five-member big Qazi Faez Isa. The bench covered Justice Aminuddin, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
Hearing Delays and Live Broadcast Discussions Imran Khan
At the start of the hearing. There was an immediate pause to discuss whether. They should broadcast live the proceedings. Chief Justice Isa mentioned that he would communicate a decision on live streaming shortly.
Justice Athar Minallah supported live broadcasts. Stating that since the case was previously shown live. It should continue to be so.
The Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa argued that the case was of public interest. Still, Chief Justice Isa remarked that it was a technical case and not necessarily of public interest. The bench then consulted to decide on the live broadcast.
Decision Against Live Broadcast
Upon resumption, the Supreme Court decided not to broadcast the NAB amendments case live. The request for live broadcasting was rejected with a 4-1 decision. Chief Justice Isa apologized for the delay, emphasizing the need to avoid hasty decisions. Justice Athar Minallah dissented from the majority decision, supporting live broadcasting.
Government’s Arguments on NAB Amendments
Subsequently, the federal government’s lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, began his arguments. He stated that amending the NAB laws was a policy decision of the government, which the judiciary should not interfere with. He stressed that judicial intervention in parliamentary powers was inappropriate.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that he followed the media and noted the Prime Minister’s comments about “black sheep.”The Attorney General clarified that he did not direct these remarks at the current judges.
Chief Justice Mandokhail’s Observations
Justice Jamal Mandokhail pointed out that those out of power had often applied the NAB laws. And when the same individuals returned to power, others fell under NAB scrutiny. Justice Athar Minallah questioned how the NAB amendments conflicted with the Constitution and asked for the rationale behind such claims.
Justice Mandokhail noted that cases involving small sums, like five lakh rupees. Were being heard in the Balochistan High Court. He stated that Parliament’s role was to decide on the severity of punishments, while the Supreme Court’s role was to assess the constitutionality of the laws.
Chief Justice’s Query on the Amendments
Chief Justice Isa inquired whether the NAB amendments had benefited criminals. Makhdoom Ali Khan responded that the amendments clarified the nature of crimes rather than providing undue advantages to offenders.
