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.
Summary from source