Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declared it cannot hear bail applications in pending National Accountability Bureau (NAB) appeals.
- All such cases have been transferred to the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).
- Judges emphasized adherence to law and Constitution over media attention.
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to hear bail applications in pending National Accountability Bureau (NAB) appeals. The court's decision was made public on Friday through a detailed 30-page judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who headed a three-member bench.
The ruling came after two petitions were filed—one by the NAB challenging an acquittal by the Peshawar High Court and another by an under-trial prisoner, Aamir Mahmood, contesting the Islamabad High Court’s refusal of his post-arrest bail. The NAB argued that with the insertion of Section 32-A in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), only the Federal Constitutional Court now has jurisdiction over all NAB cases, including bail applications.
Justice Mazhar and his colleagues emphasized that courts must adhere strictly to the law and Constitution rather than seeking media attention or public perception. They stated, 'We are fully conscious and also sanguine that neither the court should assume the jurisdiction not vested in it by law nor it should abdicate its jurisdiction so vested under the law.'
The bench further observed that unbridled judicial overreach, including misuse of suo motu powers, had harmed institutional image and legitimacy. This led to legislative changes in the Constitution and laws governing the judicial system. The judges concluded by stating, 'If a court does not possess statutory jurisdiction over a matter, it must step away without any intervention.'
The decision has significant implications for future legal proceedings involving NAB cases. It clarifies that bail applications in such cases will now be heard exclusively by the Federal Constitutional Court. This move is expected to streamline the judicial process and ensure adherence to constitutional norms.
Legal experts have welcomed the ruling, citing it as a step towards maintaining the integrity of Pakistan's judicial system. They argue that such rulings help prevent potential conflicts of interest and ensure that courts operate within their prescribed jurisdictions.
The transfer of jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to the Federal Constitutional Court is seen as a pragmatic solution to address the existing legal framework. It ensures that cases are heard by specialized courts with appropriate expertise, thereby enhancing the quality of justice delivered.
'We are fully conscious and also sanguine that neither the court should assume the jurisdiction not vested in it by law nor it should abdicate its jurisdiction so vested under the law.'
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Supreme Court Bench
