Latest News
recent

Nawaz files three review petitions in apex court against his disqualification




  • Prayed the court to accept petitions and dismiss the Constitutional 
  • Petition No. 29 of 2016; submits relevant documents about Iqama
  • Seeks review of monitor implementation of final order of the court;
  • Lauding JIT members is tantamount to foreclosing petitioner's right

ISLAMABAD: Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday filed three separate review petitions in the Supreme Court challenging his disqualification by a five-member bench on July 28. 
His lawyer Khawaja Haris Ahmad filed review petitions in the apex court through Advocate-On-Record Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah. Khawaja Haris prayed the court to accept petitions and the final order passed by the court in Panama Papers case should be recalled and the Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2016 be dismissed.
He stated: "The Final Order of the judgment suffer from errors floating on the surface of the record, besides being per incuriam, and are therefore, liable to be reviewed. The petitioners reserve the right to urge further grounds at the time of hearing of the review petition."
Khawaja Haris also submitted relevant documents about the UAE Iqama of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. He argued that the July 28 decision should have been given by a three-member bench since Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed's jurisdiction had expired after their dissenting judgement on April 20.
"By signing the final order of the court" on July 28, Justice Ahmed and Justice Khosa "have actually passed two judgements in the same case, which is unprecedented in judicial history," reads the appeal petition.
"On the face of the record, there are four final judgements passed in this case; the first of these final judgements being the minority judgement dated 20.04.2017 of the two honourable members of the originally constituted 5-member bench, the second being the majority judgement dated 20.04.2017 passed by the 3-member bench, the third judgement dated 29.07.2017 again passed by the 3-member bench of this court, and the fourth being the Final Order of the court dated 28.07.2017 passed by the originally constituted 5-member bench," the appeal said.
The petition stated that without prejudice to the proceedings grounds, it is submitted that final order of the court, July 28, 2017 suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record on account of being violative, inter alia, of Article 175 (2) and (3), Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25 of the constitution, and in breach of the principle of trichotomy of powers which forms the salient features of our constitution."
It further stated that the request made by five-member bench to the chief justice for nominating a judge of the Supreme Court to supervise and monitor implementation of final order of the court sought to be reviewed and oversee the proceedings conducted by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Accountability Court in the matters pertaining to the investigation and trial of the references directed in final order of the court to be filed against respondents is tantamount to arrogating to the apex court the role of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and court of ultimate appeal all at once, which is repugnant to the very basis of the criminal justice system in Pakistan, and it is submitted with respect, a brazen violation of the petitioner's and his family members' fundamental right to fair trial as embodied in Article 10A of the Constitution, the principle of due process as guaranteed by Article 4, the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 25, the fundamental right to life as secured by Article 9, the fundamental right to dignity of man as guaranteed by Article 14 and even the Constitutional norms of separation of powers as sanctified by this court innumerable judgments and as such the said request is manifestly per incuriam and needs to be expunged from the final order of the court.
The appreciation and commendations of the joint investigation team (JIT) members as much as the overseeing the investigation by the NAB is tantamount to foreclosing the right of the petitioner to challenge the quality, fairness, independence and legality of the investigation already carried out by the JIT members and any further investigation that may be conducted by the NAB, or to establish the mala fides and gross illegalities committed by the JIT members, or the NAB authorities, if any, as no learned judge of the Accountability Court can dare allow the defence counsel to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witness with respect to the credibility of the investigating officers and the investigation that already bears the explicit as well as the implicit approval, appreciation  and commendations of the apex court and even if so allowed to render any judgment or findings pursuant to such cross-examination that may belie or negate the observations so made by this court. 
Advocate Khuwaja Haris, the counsel of Nawaz Sharif, filed 34-page long three appeals in reply to the petitions filed by Imran Khan, Sheikh Rashid and Sirjul Haq, requesting the court to review its judgement. He contended that he had not hid his salary in his nomination papers for the 2013 polls - the ground on which he was disqualified for not being honest and trustworthy.
Amongst the attached documents included documents related to Nawaz's UAE Iqama (work permit) that led his ouster. It is stated that the jurisdiction of the two judges, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed, expired on April 20 after their dissenting notes. Hence, they shouldn't be the part of the bench and the final verdict had to rule by the three-member bench.
Lawyer Khawaja Harris wrote that non-withdrawn salary is not the part of assets according to income tax laws. According to Public Representatives Act, only those assets are to be declared which are held by the nominee. Hence, any MNA cannot be declared ineligible through Article 62 (1) (f) in this way. He further argued that the petitioners hadn't requested disqualification through the offshore company Capital FZE and the decision was made on the basis of wrong records.
Asking for stay order
Along with the review petition against the July 28 disqualification orders, he has requested for restoration orders which asks to issue a stay order for him to come back in power until the petitions are reviewed. It was requested to keep the decision suspended till the verdict on review petitions.
The plea submitted by ex-PM's counsel says that the applicant's case for review is strong as the decision was issued by a five-member bench which didn't have the legal right to do so. Appointment of custodian judge on references is a violation of Articles 125 and 75. It is mentioned that the position of custodian judge in this case is also a violation of Article 4 (10) (A). The lawyer argued that disqualification of Nawaz Sharif under Article 62 (1) (f) is against the laws of fair trial, adding that Nawaz Sharif will suffer a great loss if the court orders are not suspended.
These petitions have been filed in the top court after PML-N founder Nawaz Sharif held a power show from Islamabad to Lahore in his homecoming rally where he criticised the verdict and called it against the public mandate and sanctity of votes. - NNI

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.