Treason allegations baseless, unimaginable: Nawaz

LAHORE: Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Monday categorically denied the allegations of high treason against him, terming them baseless and unimaginable. He also questioned how his patriotism could be doubted in the light of his services to the nation and urged that the practice of labelling everyone as traitor should be shunned.

“I want to bring it on record that the heinous and baseless allegations of high treason are highly unimaginable for me. In my opinion, even answering to these allegations amounts to doubting my patriotism,” stated Nawaz Sharif in a reply submitted to the Lahore High Court in response to a petition, seeking treason charges against him.

Sharif is facing accusations of treason for allegedly trying to defame the state institutions through an interview to journalist Cyril Almeida. Former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has also been charged with the same allegations for not honouring his oath of office by disclosing the minutes of a National Security Council (NSC) meeting to Nawaz Sharif.

A three-member bench, headed by Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi and comprising Justice Atir Mahmood and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir, heard the petition, lodged by Advocate Azhar Siddiqui over a controversial interview of the former prime minister with a daily English newspaper. As the hearing resumed, Sharif, Abbasi and Almeida's lawyers furnished their formal responses to the allegations made against them. "A grave allegation such as treason is unimaginable [for me]," Nawaz stated in his response.

"This raises many questions in my mind. How can a person who made the defence of the country impeccable, be a traitor? Are millions of Pakistani people, who made me the PM for three times, also traitors? Whether people of Pakistan are also traitor who trusted my party and made the PML-N the most vote-securing party in the recent by-polls,” he added.

“I belong to the family which migrated for Pakistan and this country’s soil is more valuable to me than my life,” he said. “Have the country's institutions and agencies failed that they did not know of my treason. Is someone who rids the country of terrorism a traitor?" he asked in the written statement.

Being a three-time prime minister of Pakistan, he said he was fully aware of the challenges facing the country, its army and other law-enforcement agencies. "The country's biggest court declared the measures of a dictator as unconstitutional, and asked a treason case to be filed against him. Where is that dictator now? He has been making the mockery of the judicial system for long?"

The former premier wondered that neither whole nation nor the state institutions could find out the alleged treason committed by him except the one who filed the petition. “Does petitioner also know whereabouts of the dictator who is facing proceedings under Article 6 for abrogating the Constitution of this country?” Nawaz added.

Nawaz said he had nothing to do with the protocol, if any, provided to journalist Cyril Almeida at Multan airport. He denied having discussed minutes of a meeting of National Security Council with then prime minister Abbasi.

Refuting the allegation of sedition by the petitioner, Nawaz maintained that he never uttered any seditious remarks or gave any anti-state interview. He argued that under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973, proceedings could take place only on a complaint by the federal government, which has exclusive discretion in the matter. He asked the bench to dismiss the petition for being not maintainable.

Nawaz stated that the practice of blaming everyone as traitor or attacking patriotism and nationalism of others should be brought to an end. And levelling such accusations should be a punishable offence under country’s laws, he added.

Questioning maintainability of the petition, Nawaz argued that "the petition shows a complete lack of good faith" and that "it has been filed only for political sensationalism and merits to be dismissed with exemplary costs". He said petitioner has no locus standi.

Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, who succeeded Nawaz in the PM House following his ouster last year, "vehemently denied" the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner in his response, saying that his meeting with Nawaz mentioned in the petition was "purely concerning the issues relating to the PML-N" and that matters of the NSC were not discussed in it.

He told the bench that the allegations against him "are unfounded and based on pure assumptions and surmises", and urged the court to dismiss the petition. Meanwhile, Almeida, in his response, submitted in court by his lawyer Ahmed Rauf, defended his interview with Sharif, saying he had quoted the three-time former PM "verbatim".

In the statement, the court was told that the contents of the journalist's interview with Nawaz were "written verbatim" and the words of Mr Sharif, which had been quoted.

He added that "no malice or ulterior motive can be attributed" to him. It was further denied that Almeida was taken to Multan to interview Sharif through a special airplane". The court was told that Almeida had, in fact, travelled by road to interview the former prime minister.

The statement added that "the petitioner has taken one statement out of context while ignoring the entire news article, which includes rather important public interest statements and has to be read as a whole." Furthermore, it was mentioned that Almeida "is a patriotic journalist who has been writing in a daily newspaper on matters of public importance for years”.

The counsel pointed out that Mr Almeida, in his reply, just said that he wrote what Mr Sharif told him in the interview. “What else a journalist should say?” Justice Naqvi asked the counsel. Mr. Siddique further stated that Nawaz Sharif has not denied journalist’s stand that he had reported what Mr. Sharif stated.

During Monday’s hearing, former premier Abbasi appeared before the bench but Nawaz failed to. Appreciating the conduct of Mr Abbasi, Justice Naqvi, on a lighter vein, said his frequent appearances before the LHC benefited him a lot as Lahorites elected him to the National Assembly in the recent by-poll. “I also like to appear before courts,” responded Abbasi.

“You may become prime minister again if you keep visiting the court,” another member of the bench Justice Ch Masood Jahangir said to Mr Abbasi. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi questioned why Nawaz did not appear in court and remarked, "He should have been present for the hearing."

Nawaz's counsel, Naseer Bhutta responded, "You had summoned a reply which has been submitted." Justice Naqvi then stated, "Look Abbasi respects the courts and is present today." Bhutta, in response, said: "Nawaz did not appear today and this does not mean that he does not respect the courts."

The head of the three-judge bench then stated, "If Nawaz could not appear today for whatever reason, then you should have submitted a petition seeking exemption." Responding to the judge, Nawaz's counsel said, "During the first hearing I got the impression that my client only has to appear once." At this, Justice Naqvi remarked, "It is fine that you got the wrong impression, but next time a petition should be submitted over failure to appear in court." The hearing was adjourned till November 12.