LHC directs govt to inform Maryam on ECL

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday directed the federal government to inform PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz on its decision pertaining to removal of her name from the Exit Control List (ECL).

Hearing Maryam’s second petition, a two-member bench, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, observed that the petitioner would have to wait for the federal government’s decision on whether or not her name can be removed from the ECL. Justice Anwarul Haq Punhu was the other member of the bench.

The LHC same bench on December 9 had disposed of her earlier petition seeking exclusion of her name from the no-fly list and one-time permission to visit London to inquire after her ailing father and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and directed the sub-committee of the federal cabinet to decide the matter within a week. As hearing commenced, Maryam’s counsel Advocate Amjad Pervez stated that the government initially remained non-responsive and took up the matter, following persistent requests by her counsel, for hearing on December 18 wherein all concerned including representatives of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) were summoned and heard. However, she said, she had not been yet intimated about the fate of her representation despite the lapse of the time given by the court.

Pervez pointed out that Maryam’s representative Atta Tarrar had also appeared before the sub-committee but still no decision was taken.

When asked by the court how long it had been since its earlier order was issued, Maryam’s lawyer replied that two weeks had gone since the directive was issued to the government. However, no decision had yet been taken on the matter. To a court query, Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Ishtiaq A Khan, told it that the sub-committee had presented its recommendation to the cabinet which would take a final decision on removing the PML-N vice president’s name from the ECL.

“It means the government has yet to decide the matter but the ministers and advisers are giving statements in public,” Justice Punhu said, adding that he had read in the newspaper that the government would not allow her to go abroad. “The government has yet to take a decision. How are they giving a statement before the decision is taken?” he asked, without referring to a senior lawyer and aide to the prime minister, Dr Babar Awan, who on Sunday had said that the sub-committee of the federal cabinet that deals with ECL cases had rejected her plea. Justice Punhu also asked Maryam’s counsel to explain the maintainability of the case.

“Is this petition for Maryam Nawaz or Nawaz Sharif?” he asked, in response to which Pervez said a summary of Nawaz’s case had been included in his daughter’s petition as their cases are connected.

After hearing arguments, the court asked the federal government to intimate to Maryam about whatever decision is taken in the December 24 (today) cabinet meeting. The court deferring the hearing till December 26 (Thursday), observed that it cannot issue any order till the government’s decision on the matter.

Maryam contended that it was a known fact that her father was allowed to go abroad on account of his critical health condition. She said her father had not regained his health so far as he is still undergoing diagnosis process as per a medical report filed with the court, duly attested by the Pakistan High Commission in London. The PML-N leader said she is in dire need to go abroad to inquire after her ailing father. “Serving one’s father is not only a religious obligation but the same also inheres in human nature, indeed, the same is also a universally-recognized norm but unfortunately, it appears that the respondent government is swayed over by its political rhetoric,” said the petition. The petitioner argued that the petitioner had been placed on the ECL without notice and providing any opportunity of hearing. It argued that the impugned memorandum issued on the recommendations of the NAB violates her fundamental rights of due process, life, liberty, treatment in accordance with the law and fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution.

It further said the so-called recommendations by the NAB had been acted upon in a mechanical manner and without judicious application of mind in contravention of the law declared by the superior courts.