SC never termed Nawaz ‘Godfather’: Justice Khosa

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday said that the court never referred to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif as ‘Godfather’ in the Panamagate verdict.

Heading a three-member bench of the apex court hearing contempt cases against Jang Group, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that it had become a custom to attribute something to the judiciary which had never been uttered by the court. He clarified that the court had never termed Nawaz Sharif ‘Godfather’ in the Panama case judgment.

The judge said that statements were being attributed to judges out of context, and urged everyone not to repeat them.

To justify this, Justice Asif Saeed Khan called Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman to rostrum and asked as to whether he had ever found in Panama case judgment wherein the court had termed Nawaz Sharif ‘Godfather’.

The additional attorney general replied in negative.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that the reference to the Sicilian Mafia was made because of open threats given by PML-N leader Nihal Hashmi to the judiciary.

He further said that a Supreme Court judge when asked about becoming a head of a political party, it was misquoted by media.

He stressed that media persons should render their professional obligations with extra care while covering the court proceedings.

It is pertinent to mention here that Justice Asif Saeed Khan’s clarification came in the wake of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz’ continuous onslaught on SC judges for allegedly using terms like ‘Sicilian Mafia and Godfather’ to label them.

Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the other day, while hearing a media commission case also said that Parliament is supreme but above it there is Constitution which has prescribed their limits saying any legislation which is found in contravention to the fundamental rights of the citizen, can be struck down in accordance with law.

The chief justice said that it was conveyed that the court could not intervene in the process of legislation.