ISLAMABAD: Soon after the announcement of the Supreme Court judgement on the NAB amendments, a senior counsel commented that the order had proved that in Pakistan, being a parliamentarian was a crime.

He also regretted that the apex court had ordered that corruption references of pending inquiries against a number of politicians be restored, without even giving them the opportunity of a fair hearing.

Meanwhile, senior counsel Tariq Mehmood Khokhar described the judgement as a `triumph of the legitimately interpretative over the illegitimately legislative`.

A rump parliament of the likeminded, with a likeminded opposition, `legislating` ex-post facto, during the course of their arraignments, for their very own legal immunities and privileges, was no legitimate legislation, he said.

`And now, without a representative executive or representative legislature, the Supreme Court stands alone to save the last vestiges of the Constitution, and that too in the face of raw power, with controlled institutions and the media.

Certain `amendments` do violence tothe Constitution, the rule of law, the principles of justice and constitutional morality, he regretted.

Advocate Hafiz Ahsaan Khokhar commented that the Supreme Court had, in fact, ruled that there was no alternative for strong and effective accountability that was beyond all political and excessive alignments and to promote the standard of maximum transparency standard, which we the countryhadbeenlackingsofar.

It was expected that the bench would strike down certain provisions of the NAB amendments, such as those relating to monitory jurisdiction, plea bargains, onus of burden, holders of public office, and those in the service of Pakistan, he said.

However, it would have been better for the outgoing CJP to constitute a lager bench and address all the issues relating to accountability amendments when there was an issue with the legislative competency of parliament, especially in view of the observations that had been passed by superior courts over the past several years on the working of NAB.

Advocate Khokhar explained that the matter would not end here, and the federal government would definitely file a review, which would pose a big chal-lenge to the incoming CJP.

`Don`t celebrate verdict` Lawyer Abuzar Salman Niazi, however, cautioned against celebrating the verdict. `It gives NAB all powers to abuse process of law, become instrument of oppression and help various quarters settle scores. Expecting NAB to work professionally and eradicate corruption in Pakistan will remain a pipedream. It will only be used as and when required on quid pro quo basis,` he said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

`If we are serious about accountability, the best thing we require to be done is independence of NAB. Laws won`t do any good until and unless NAB acts as an independent authority,` Mr Niazi tweeted.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Yasin Azad was of the opinion that by announcing this verdict on the last day of his tenure, CJP Bandial had drawn a big questionmark over the sovereignty of parliament.

He told VOA Urdu that while the court had eliminated the clauses that dealt with cases against political leaders, those associated with the armed forces, judiciary and bureaucracy would retain their immunity.