ISLAMABAD            -          The Supreme Court of Pakistan Wednesday continued its hearing in the petition of Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan against the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. 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 former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.The chief justice said after the amendments in NAO the trial on references were stalled or returned. During the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that it is an issue and asked the bench to direct NAB to inform the court that out of 386 how many were of parliamentarians. He further contended that the NAB is also directed to provide details of references returned and how many persons were acquitted or how many applications were filed for the acquittal after the enactment of five ordinances promulgated the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government to amend the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO). He said that the NAO second amendment bill laid before the National Assembly was the combination of the previous government changes made in the NAO through ordinances. It was the continuation of the previous government’s ordinances. The counsel argued that many references were returned because in those cases the offences were related to the FBR, therefore they were sent to the tax department. He said that NAB should also provide a list that how many applications were filed for the acquittal after the enactment of ordinances during the PTI tenure. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that there are layers of laws for various offences in the country therefore a person once out from the NAB ambit does not mean will go scot free or he can’t be tried by other courts under different offences. Makhdoom said in his opinion the accountability courts should not have returned the references, as it has the power to acquit or punish persons instead of returning the references. He said there is no acquittal but their cases may be sent to other courts, if there is no power with the accountability courts. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan remarked that the other side (petitioner) case is when the definition of the offences have been changed, and the standard of proof changed then there is no conviction. He questioned how the government could redefine the offence and reset the standard of proof retrospectively. The trial stalled and the end of sentence. “It appears to me to be a grand amnesty,” added Justice Ijaz. He further said even if the trial is conducted it would be made slow and ineffective so make the conviction difficult. Makhdoom asked Justice Ijaz that his observation is tentative. Justice Ijaz said that after hearing you (lawyer) will close the file and go to the chambers and write judgment. We have to see the arguments of both the parties and see the material supplied to court. The federation counsel argued that there is another way to look at the law, which the court after examining may uphold rather than striking it down. He said that burden of proof is on the other side (petitioner). Later, the bench deferred the hearing till Thursday (today). Notices to the ecP, NADRA The Supreme Court of Pakistan Wednesday issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and NADRA on an appeal against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict and the petitions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Pakistan Awami Muslim League (AML) Sheikh Rashid. A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan conducted hearing of the appeal of Dawood Ghazanavi and dual national Atif Iqbal Khan against the IHC, which on June 6, 2022 had disposed of their petition after they had withdrawn it. The ex-CJ IHC while dismissing the petition had observed that none of the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017 by the incumbent coalition government deprive the overseas Pakistanis of their right to vote. He stated that the amendments, both new and the earlier, to the law were the same in nature and the only difference is that more explanation has been given in the new amendments. He added that both the amendments were not seeking to eliminate the voting right of the overseas Pakistanis. The National Assembly on May 26 passed a bill namely Elections (Amendment) Bill 2022 which reversed the election laws introduced by the government of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) regarding the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) and E-voting for overseas Pakistanis. During the proceeding, Arif Chaudhry, appearing on behalf of Dawood Ghazanavi and Atif Khan informed the bench that the polling procedure has been made “difficult” to prevent overseas Pakistanis from voting. He said under Section 94 of the Elections Act, 2017, the ECP is legally bound to devise a mechanism to enforce the fundamental right of vote of overseas Pakistanis, which had been virtually taken away under the guise of the said amendment act. They had filed the petition against the passage of the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2022 which disallows overseas Pakistanis from voting electronically. The petitioners’ objected to the amendment in Section 94 in the Elections (Amendment) Act, 2022, saying that despite that the law mandated the ECP to take some decisive acts to enable overseas Pakistanis to exercise their right to vote, no action in this regard had been taken by the respondent. They said that the former PTI government had made an amendment in sub-section (1) of Section 94 of the Elections Act, 2017 and the present regime, which was vociferously opposing the fundamental right of vote of overseas Pakistanis at all levels, also made an amendment in Section 94. The petitioners contended that new amendment has reversed not only the enactment made to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners but has also set aside/reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Then, the bench adjourned the hearing of the case for two weeks for further proceedings