ISLAMABAD:
Supreme Court (SC) on Friday ruled that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear cases under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law, holding that the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) must hear all criminal appeals and pending petitions under amendments introduced earlier this year.
The ruling is expected to affect pending proceedings involving Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi in the £190 million NAB case. They had challenged the rejection of their bail pleas before the SC, but the registrar returned their petition after raising objections, stating that the appropriate forum was the FCC. Friday’s judgment confirms that such matters fall within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.
The ruling, delivered by a three-member bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, settled a jurisdictional question that emerged following amendments to the NAB law on March 5 this year. The court held that Sections 32 and 32A of the amended law, read with Articles 175A and 175F of the Constitution, vest appellate jurisdiction in NAB matters exclusively in the FCC
In a detailed 30-page judgment issued today, the SC directed that all pending criminal appeals and petitions in NAB cases be transferred to the Constitutional Court. The three-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, reserved its verdict on July 16 before issuing its short order and subsequently releasing the detailed reasons.
Read: FCC fixes Imran’s ‘release force’ case
The court rejected arguments that it could continue hearing bail applications while the Constitutional Court dealt with the main appeals, saying such an arrangement would be contrary to law.
“It is not possible” for bail petitions to remain before the SC while substantive appeals are heard by the Constitutional Court, the judgment said, warning that dividing jurisdiction between two forums would create an unlawful inconsistency.
The bench also emphasised that jurisdiction is determined by statute rather than by the conduct of litigants or the courts.
Addressing an argument based on an earlier SC bail order issued after the NAB amendments came into force, the court observed that the question of jurisdiction had not been raised in that case. It said the absence of an objection could not confer jurisdiction where the law did not.
“Even if no objection is raised, jurisdiction is determined by law,” the judgment said.
The court further observed that the reasons behind the earlier bail order could only be explained by the bench that heard the matter, as the issue of jurisdiction had not been argued before it.
Read more: SC examines FCC’s jurisdiction
The judgment distinguished NAB matters from appeals against the Federal Shariat Court, noting that while the Constitution expressly empowered the SC to hear appeals against decisions of the Federal Shariat Court, no such jurisdiction existed for NAB appeals following the March amendments.
The bench also rejected the principle of litigants choosing the forum in which they wish to pursue proceedings.
“A legal forum cannot be created based on a litigant’s preference or consent,” the court said, adding that parties cannot engage in “forum shopping” by selecting the court they consider most favourable.
The jurisdictional dispute arose during proceedings in a pending NAB case in which counsel for the petitioner, Abad ur Rehman Lodhi, argued that the SC should continue hearing the bail application. He relied on a SC bail order dated March 18, issued after the amended NAB law had taken effect.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan opposed the plea, arguing that both appeals and bail petitions in NAB cases now fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FCC. He maintained that a single case could not be divided, with one aspect heard by the SC and another by the Constitutional Court. Counsel representing NAB supported the federal government’s position.
