Plea seeking Kulsoom’s disqualification dismissed

LAHORE:The Lahore High Court Wednesday sustained objection of registrar office and dismissed a civil miscellaneous application seeking life-time disqualification of Kulsoom Nawaz, who recently won NA-120 by-elections. 

Justice Aminuddin Khan took up the application as “objection case” and dismissed the same for being unnecessary litigation. The judge observed that the Supreme Court had already issued a decision on the matter dismissing petitions against the candidature of Kulsoom Nawaz. 

Barrister Javed Iqbal Jafree had contended in his application that the returning officer wrongly accepted nomination papers of Kulsoom Nawaz as her husband Nawaz Sharif stood disqualified in Panama Papers case for being a non-righteous and non-sagacious person. 

He alleged Ms Nawaz concealed facts about her assets and liabilities in the nomination papers, which the returning officer ignored in sheer violation of his mandatory duties. He asked the court to slap a life-time disqualification on Ms Nawaz for being dependent of a disqualified prime minister and concealing facts from the election commission.

Barrister Jafree sought review of an earlier decision wherein a three-judge full bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan had dismissed with a majority view three petitions against the candidature of Ms Nawaz. 

Model Town case: A lawyer has sought permission from the Lahore High Court to withdraw a petition pending adjudication before a full bench regarding composition of tribunals/commissions comprising sitting judges to hold judicial inquiries. Advocate Azhar Siddique had filed the petition in the wake of 2014 Model Town incident and a judicial inquiry held by a LHC judge into the killings of Pakistan Awami Tehreek’s workers.

In his fresh application, the lawyer requested that he be permitted to withdraw the petition to file it again, if needed. He said this during hearing of a petition demanding release of the Model Town inquiry report the Punjab government told a single bench that the same matter had been pending before the full bench. Therefore, it asked the court to refer the matter to the full bench. 

Advocate Siddique claimed that the government misled the single bench as the case before the full bench was related to the formation of a judicial tribunal, its powers and appointment of a high court judge to hold judicial inquiry. The lawyer asked the court to allow him to withdraw the petition from the full bench.