The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan restored limitations to the country’s anti-corruption body's powers a day earlier, raising the question: what does this mean for the corruption cases against Pakistan's incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan?
Among several amendments made to the anti-graft law, one restricts the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from pursuing corruption cases involving amounts less than Rs500 million.
While the changes in law benefit leaders of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), they also offer potential relief to Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi.
A Toshakhana – government’s gift repository - cases registered against the ex-premier and his wife in July this year is one such case. It was registered on July 13 hours after the couple cleared their last legal hurdle in securing a release from jail.
The case concerns a jewelry set the former first lady was gifted during her visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2021 and Rolex and Graff watches. It comprises a ring, bracelet, necklace, and a pair of earrings.
As per NAB’s inquiry report, on May 28, 2021, the price of the jewelry set was estimated at PKR 70.56 million. A Graff watch valued at PKR 100 million was sold for PKR 20 million with an appraiser's underestimation, indicating a collusion.
However, the case can no longer proceed in the accountability court as the total amount involved is less than PKR 500 million.
Another case that could potentially be discontinued is the £190 million case. During his tenure Imran allowed the amount, obtained from the UK as criminal proceeds, to be deposited in the Supreme Court’s account. In return, he is accused of receiving PKR 3 billion and 200 kanals of land as ‘kickback’ through his wife's friend, Farhat Shahzadi.
However, since the decision to transfer the amount to the apex court was made by Imran's cabinet and not him alone, NAB cannot proceed with the case as the amended law bars it from proceeding with any cases related to decisions approved by the cabinet, councils, or boards.
Earlier during a hearing on Imran’s appeals against these amendments, SC’s Justice Athar Minallah addressed the incarcerated premier – present in court via video link – and remarked that he stood to benefit from the amendments. The former premier acknowledged, but still insisted they not be restored.
He has now decided to avail the relief, filing an acquittal plea in the £190 million case. Today, Imran’s lawyer filed an application in the case with an accountability court on which notices have been issued for Tuesday.
What experts think
Apex court advocate Salman Akram Raja, who also represents Imran Khan in several cases, stated that with the Supreme Court's decision, all NAB cases related to Imran are effectively over. He emphasized that the Toshakhana cases, involving less than PKR 500 million, no longer fall under NAB’s jurisdiction. Raja also noted that the £190 million case can't proceed either, as NAB would need to prove Imran personally gained financial benefit—something it has already conceded he did not.
Lahore High Court (LHC) lawyer Mudassir Khalid Abbasi echoed this assessment, identifying the same two cases and highlighting that the amendments place the burden of proof squarely on the prosecution, making it more challenging to pursue cases like these under the new framework.
Former Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan appears before the Supreme Court via video link from Adiala jail during a hearing of the NAB Amendments case. The picture was leaked online from inside the courtroom, triggering the judges' backlash.Courtesy: X/@Fakharrehman01
However, former prosecutor NAB and advocate of the Supreme Court Imran Shafique disagrees. In the £190 million case, he said the cabinet approval was obtained through “concealment of facts”. The majority of the cabinet members have already stated that the document on which approval was obtained was in a sealed envelope. “Such an approval has no legal standing,” he added.
Moreover, he added that the agreement signed between Imran’s adviser on accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar with the UK’s National Crime Agency for the money transfer was dated before the cabinet approval was sought.
Shafique adds that NAB’s case against Imran is that the money should have come through the national exchequer, which it did not.
Lawyer Muneeb Farooq also believes the £190 million case will not be impacted by the amendments. He said NAB’s case specifically points out the fact that Imran gave approval on November 6, 2019, whereas the cabinet meeting was held in December 2019.
The amendments
After much legal wrangling, the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan with a 5-0 majority reinstated legal amendments curtailing the powers of the country’s controversial anti-corruption body, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
The decision reversed an earlier ruling by a former chief justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, from September 2023, who had invalidated those changes.
The federal government's successful appeal marked a significant legal and political shift.
The amendments were initially introduced in by the coalition government – the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) – that took on the reins of power following the ouster of now-incarcerated premier Imran Khan’s government. It was passed by a joint sitting of the parliament held on June 9, 2022.
Hundreds of corruption cases registered against the PPP and PML-N’s top leadership in NAB courts come to an end with the restoration of the amendments.
Key takeaways from the ruling
- NAB can only take up cases involving amounts over PKR 500 million. All other ongoing inquiries, investigations, and trials less than this amount will be transferred to the relevant authorities.
- Individuals accused of corruption can now be detained for 40 days before applying for bail. However, the amendments allow the accountability courts to also grant bail.
- Public office holders will only face trial if it is proven that they misused their authority for personal financial gain.
In the 16-page judgment, the apex court has said that it cannot serve as a gatekeeper for parliament, emphasizing that neither the chief justice nor judges can assume this role. The ruling further noted that the court should preserve legislation in every possible manner.
With additional reporting by Aamir Saeed Abbasi*
Comments
See what people are discussing