Citing political misuse Pak SC shuns live-streaming of NAB amendments case

The top court rejected the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa advocate general's application to live-stream the proceedings of the federal government's intra-court appeals against its September 15 verdict that struck down amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law.

In 2022, amendments to Pakistan's accountability laws were implemented by the Pakistan Democratic Movement-led government. These amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 included significant alterations such as reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, limiting NAB's jurisdiction to cases involving over PKR 500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to the relevant authorities.

Following these changes, Imran Khan filed a petition challenging the amendments, asserting that they were designed to favour influential individuals and legitimise corruption. The petition argued that the amendments aimed to dismiss corruption cases against high-ranking officials and offered an avenue for convicted public office-holders to overturn their convictions.

After 53 hearings, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on September 5, 2023, with discussions revolving around the power of parliament to enact legislation retrospectively. On September 15, the court ordered the reinstatement of corruption cases against public office holders that were withdrawn following the amendments to the accountability laws, deeming Imran's plea maintainable, Dawn reported.

However, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa hinted during an October 31, 2023, hearing that if the requirements of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 were not met in previous proceedings, the case could potentially be restarted afresh if a solid case were presented.

While the apex court declined to stay proceedings in ongoing corruption cases, it instructed trial courts to refrain from announcing final orders until the next hearing of the appeals.

The court was confronted with multiple ICAs initiated by the federal government and private citizen Zuhair Ahmed Siddiqui, who was implicated in a corruption case unrelated to the challenges to the NAB amendments.

In a May 14 hearing, CJP Isa directed the government to arrange video link facilities for Imran to participate in the proceedings regarding changes to the accountability laws and present his arguments.

However, during the May 16 hearing, although Imran appeared via video link, he did not get an opportunity to speak as a petitioner. The lack of live broadcast during this hearing left reasons unclear at the time.

In the May 30 hearing, the bench, led by CJP Isa and including Justices Athar Minallah, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Hasan Azhar Rizvi, decided in a 4:1 ruling against live-streaming the proceedings. The decision followed an application by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general (AG) to live-stream the proceedings.

Explaining the decision in a written order released subsequently, the court highlighted concerns about potential misuse of the live-streaming facility for personal or political purposes, including grandstanding. The order emphasised the need to prevent political exploitation during hearings.

The court noted that during Imran's speech in the May 30 hearing, he delved into unrelated matters such as general elections, a commission of inquiry, and his incarceration. Such tangential discussions were deemed inappropriate and irrelevant to the appeals.

Addressing the AG's application, the court clarified that the decision against live-streaming wasn't discriminatory, as only a few cases had been live-streamed previously. The court highlighted that its decision to live-stream proceedings depended on the significance of the case and public interest. It also pointed out that Imran had not attended several hearings, and neither he nor the KP government had requested live-streaming of the proceedings.

Conclusively, the court reiterated that the decision to live broadcast or live-stream proceedings rested solely with the court, emphasising that such matters were within its exclusive domain, Dawn reported. (ANI)