The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned until July 16 the hearing of an important legal question concerning its jurisdiction over National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases following amendments to the NAB law, directing the petitioner’s counsel to submit rejoinder arguments in response to the federal government and the NAB prosecution.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan heard the case.
During the proceedings, the Attorney General argued that following the amendments to the NAB law, the Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear such matters. He maintained that bail petitions and appeals against convictions in NAB cases now fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court.
He further argued that it would not be legally feasible for one part of a case to be heard by the Supreme Court while another part was decided by the Federal Constitutional Court. The NAB prosecution supported the federal government’s stance.
Counsel for the petitioner, Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, contended that the amended NAB law did not explicitly state that bail petitions would be heard by the Federal Constitutional Court.
He argued that the amendments transferred only appeals against convictions to the Federal Constitutional Court, while the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over bail matters.
The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that even after the amendments, the Supreme Court had granted bail in a NAB case and, at that time, the NAB prosecution had raised no objection to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar then asked the NAB prosecutor whether any objection regarding jurisdiction had been raised during the earlier proceedings. The prosecutor replied that no such objection had been made during the hearing held on March 18.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan observed that jurisdiction was the foremost legal issue in any case and remarked that NAB itself had overlooked the matter by failing to raise the objection at the appropriate stage. He added that the failure to challenge jurisdiction reflected negligence on the part of the prosecution.
Justice Musarrat Hilali also questioned why NAB had suddenly changed its position on the issue of jurisdiction.
The Court subsequently directed the petitioner’s counsel to prepare rejoinder arguments and adjourned further hearing of the case until July 16.