ISLAMABAD     -    The Supreme Court of Pakistan Wednesday said that Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan should have raised the objections against the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 in the Parliament instead of filing a petition in the court. A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah conducted hearing of the constitutional petition of the PTI chief against the amendments in the NAO 1999. Justice Mansoor, responding to Khawaja Haris’ argument that after the amendments the amount paid by a convicted in voluntary returns or plea bargain would have to be returned, said that the petitioner (ex-PM) could have raised these objections instead of approaching the court. He added that Imran was given sacred trust by the voters of his constituency. However, he (IK) walked out of the parliament and breached their trust, and now filed the petition before the apex court, raising objections on the amendments in the NAO. Justice Ijaz said that this Court (SC) found that the parliamentary sovereignty was not unbridled rather it has certain overarching restrictions subject to the Constitution. The accountability is not only confined to this world but the world to come. The judge noted that the amendments are regressive in nature as the efforts have been made since 1947 to curb the menace of corruption. He added that instead of improving the law the loopholes have been created and certain standards affected. Earlier, Kh Haris argued that before the National Accountability Ordinance there were laws to prevent corruption. He added that in 1997 the Nawaz Sharif government had promulgated Ehtesab Act. He contended that the recent amendments made have nullified the accountability process of public office holders. Justice Mansoor questioned that if the NAB law is repealed then what would be his stance. Khawja Haris replied that then he would be attacking the repealed law and pray for its restoration. They (government) have betrayed the trust by not making the public holders accountable. The judge then asked from the counsel to cite any judgment from our own jurisprudence where the law repealed was brought to the Court and it was restored. Justice Bandial said that there is legal norm, but there is also legal grundnorm and the Prevention of Corruption Act has been here since 1947. “We would be satisfied if the minimum criteria against corruption is not breached,” he added. He then referred to Surah Yusuf saying that Hazrat Yusuf was given control of the storeroom in Egypt because of his honesty. He said that it would apply to the pending cases and also in the cases of past and closed transactions and so far the cases of past and closed transactions were reopened through the judgments or by the courts. He said that return of the money, which runs into billions, will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens. Justice Mansoor questioned that how the fundamental rights of the citizens will be affected if the money returned from the public exchequer was of the accused which he paid in voluntary return or plea bargain to the NAB under duress