Rawalpindi (Web Desk): Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder and former premier Imran Khan on Saturday sought relief from the £190 million case after the Supreme Court's (SC) verdict in the NAB amendments case.
During the hearing today at the accountability court headed by Judge Nasir Javed Rana in Rawalpindi's Adiala jail, the PTI founder filed a petition seeking acquittal in the case that accused both Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi.
Khan’s lawyers maintained that after the top court's restoration of the amendments made to the NAB laws, the £190 million reference against the PTI founder holds no ground since the changes grant immunity to all decisions taken by the cabinet.
NAB's legal representatives have opposed Imran's plea, arguing that the court's jurisdiction over the reference remains unchanged despite the Supreme Court's decision.
They contend that the defence should have first challenged the court's jurisdiction before seeking acquittal.
They also assert that jurisdiction must be determined before any acquittal can be granted.
At this, Khan’s lawyer said they have not challenged the jurisdiction of the court. He added that it is the discretion of the court to decide its jurisdiction.
The accountability court issued a notice to NAB and all other relevant parties regarding PTI founder’s petition and adjourned the hearing till September 10.
On Friday, the SC reinstated the changes in the country's anti-corruption laws after accepting the federal government’s appeal against the September 15, 2023 majority judgement, which struck down the amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).
The federal and provincial governments had submitted intra-court appeals after the NAB amendments were earlier declared unconstitutional. The SC had reserved its ruling on the federal government’s appeal on June 6.
The court ruled PTI founder Imran Khan was unable to prove the NAB Amendment Bill violated the Constitution.
Chief Justice Isa also noted that while the NAB law does not cover the judiciary and certain institutions or individuals, no amendments were made to address this. He added that Parliament had the authority to enact such legislation.
