close
Friday April 26, 2024

LHC directs govt to submit reply over failure to decide on Maryam's removal from ECL

LHC had set a seven-day deadline for the govt to decide on Maryam's removal from ECL

By Web Desk
January 15, 2020
Maryam Nawaz. Photo: File

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday asked the federal government to explain in writing why it took more than seven days to take a final decision over Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) leader Maryam Nawaz’s removal from the Exit Control List (ECL), Geo News reported. 

Last month, the LHC, while hearing Maryam’s petition, had set a seven-day deadline for the government to decide on the matter.

However, the federal cabinet did not take a decision within the deadline, leading to the PML-N leader filing a second petition in the court on December 21.

The federal cabinet had eventually taken the decision to "unanimously" reject Maryam's request on December 24.

A two-member bench headed by Justice Tariq Abbasi, during a hearing on Maryam's petition today, ordered the government to explain the delay and issued a notice.

During the hearing, Maryam’s counsel again asked the court to remove her name from the ECL.

However, the court asked the counsel to explain why his client's name should be removed from the list. To this, Maryam’s counsel replied that the PML-N leader wants to be with her father Nawaz Sharif, who is in London for medical treatment.

After issuing the notice to the federal government, the court adjourned the hearing till January 23.

In her previous petition, Maryam had expressed concern for Nawaz's health and had requested the court to allow her to travel abroad so she could take care of him.

She had also said that she was under a lot of stress due to not being able to care for her father at a time when he needed to be closely monitored.

Maryam and her father Nawaz were placed on the ECL in 2018, following their conviction in the Avenfield reference.

It is pertinent to mention that on November 4, the LHC had granted bail to Maryam in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case.