Wed June 20, 2018
Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

Top Story

August 27, 2017



Nawaz files another review petition

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif on Saturday filed another review petition against the Supreme Court’s July 28 verdict in Panama Papers case.


Earlier on August 15, Mian Nawaz Sharif had challenged his disqualification by the apex court in Panama Leak cases and had prayed the apex court to set aside its order of July 28, unseating him from the membership of National Assembly.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, on July 28, sent former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif home, for not being "honest" under the law and disqualified him from being the member of the Parliament. The court also ordered NAB to file references against him and his family members.

The majority judgement authored by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan had declared that having failed to disclose his non-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital FZE, Jebel Ali, UAE, in his nomination papers filed for the general elections held in 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and having furnished a false declaration under solemn affirmation respondent No 1, Mian Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, he is disqualified to be a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

In his fresh review petition, the former prime minister requested the court to declare its verdict as void and revoke it as "not drawing and declaring salary" cannot be made the basis for disqualification.

He submitted that the original petitions filed by Imran Khan, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad and Sirajul Haq did not mention FZE Capital, thus how he could be disqualified over a matter which was not included in the petitions.

In support of his contention, that not drawing a salary from Capital FZE could not lead to a disqualification, the ousted prime minister submitted that
ccording to Pakistan’s Income Tax laws, a salary is the amount "that has been received by the filer".

“In light of the Income Tax law, he cannot be disqualified, even if he had declared his salary from Capital FZE, Nawaz Sharif contended, adding even if the salary is considered a receivable, it is still not a valid ground for disqualification.

Referring to not declaring his assets, he contended that the petitioner has a relevant forum to deal with such matters, adding that if the Supreme Court had referred the matter to that forum, he would have the chance to defend himself before that forum.

Nawaz Sharif submitted that "not drawing salary and not disclosing it" cannot be termed as ‘dishonesty. Similarly, he also objected to the fact that his reservations and those of his family  about the joint investigation team (JIT) were dismissed.

Nawaz said the  apex court directives to the trial court are in violation of fundamental rights to a fair trial. The former prime minister also submitted that directing the trial court to wrap up its proceedings within six months will affect the matter, adding no law in Pakistan allows for monitoring of a trial court, and so the apex court’s order  to conduct such monitoring is against the law.

It is pertinent to mention here that his close relative and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar on August 21 has also challenged the court’s July 28 verdict. He had questioned the court’s authority to pass a verdict about his assets being beyond his known source of income in a petition filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

Similarly, children of Nawaz Sharif, including daughter Mariam Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar had also filed review petitions challenging the Supreme Court’s July 28 verdict, the other day.