The Supreme Court Friday issued notices to the government in connection with PTI chief Imran Khan’s petition challenging the recent amendments to the NAB ordinance, with a judge observing that it is parliament that had the authority to change the Constitution. A three-member bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition. The court asked Imran’s lawyer Khawaja Haris to highlight which NAB amendments were contrary to the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the people, with Justice Shah remarking that the court could only exercise its authority over matters of parliament when they were unconstitutional. At the outset of the hearing, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman said that he would assist the court on the matter, while the chief justice remarked that the court would only hear the petitioner’s arguments. He remarked that he had been reading Imran’s petition since last night, instructing Haris to present his arguments “in detail” on the how the amendment was contradictory to the Constitution and which fundamental rights did it violate. The CJP also inquired about the amendments that affected NAB laws and cases. However, Justice Shah pointed out that a similar petition had been filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as well and suggested that the court should first wait for IHC’s “wisdom on the matter” before issuing a verdict. In response, the PTI counsel said the NAB amendments do not concern just a single court, but the entire country. Haris said that both Islam and the Constitution stress accountability. “Independence of the judiciary and accountability of public officials are fundamental components of the Constitution,” he said, arguing that after the amendments, public officials had “exceeded” the concept of accountability. Here, the chief justice remarked that further clarity was required on challenging the NAB amendments. “Khawaja sahab, it would be better if you prepare a brief chart on your requests,” he suggested. The CJP said that the lawyer was referring to the Islamic provisions of the Constitution. “Having a check and balance is extremely important for democracy. Corruption occurs when you do something illegal and benefit from it,” he remarked, adding that doing so would be an abuse of power and a loss for the treasury. “If a dam is being built somewhere and a lobby opposes it, then it will be opposition towards a national asset,” he stated, further highlighting that accountability was important to run a democracy and government. Meanwhile, Justice Shah asked whether the court could restore the amended NAB law. Justice Shah highlighted that Imran’s petition had stated that the NAB amendments were contradictory to parliamentary democracy and the basic structure of the Constitution. “You tell me which amendment is against the Constitution,” he asked. “Your job is to tell us which amendment is against the fundamental rights and the Constitution.” The judge asked Haris to also highlight if the amendments were benefitting some specific accused people. “Do you want the court to ask Parliament to improve the law?” he further inquired. Haris said that his client wanted the court to declare amendments conflicting with the Constitution null and void. Justice Shah wondered whether the lawyer’s arguments about a law being against parliamentary democracy were sufficient for it to be annulled. The judge said that the Constitution didn’t have a “basic structure” and several amendments were contradictory to it. “The Parliament has the authority to change the entire Constitution,” he remarked, adding that the court has recognised the Constitution’s basic structure in the constitutional amendment case. Replying to the judges’ questions, Haris said that there were several amendments that were “contradictory” to the Constitution and gave the example of free education. “Can the right of a free education be abolished by a constitutional amendment? If the parliament abolishes the death penalty, can it not be challenged?” Justice Shah said that if parliament were to abolish the death penalty, “how will we be able to restore it?” The PTI lawyer replied that if that happened, it would first be challenged in the Shariat court. Subsequently, the court issued notices to the government on the plea under the amendments and adjourned the hearing till August 5.