Nawaz Sharif files three review petitions in SC against his disqualification

Profile Picture

ISLAMABAD, Aug 15 (APP): Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on
Tuesday filed three separate review petitions in the Supreme Court
challenging his disqualification by a five-member bench on July 28.
His lawyer Khawaja Haris Ahmad filed review petitions in the
apex court through Advocate-On-Record Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah.
Khawaja Haris prayed the court to accept
petitions and the final order passed by the court in Panama Papers case
should be recalled and the Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2016 be
He stated: “The Final Order of the judgment suffer from
errors floating on the surface of the record, besides being per
incuriam, and are therefore, liable to be reviewed. The petitioners
reserve the right to urge further grounds at the time of hearing of
the review petition.”
Khawaja Haris also submitted relevant documents about the UAE
Iqama of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. He argued that the July 28 decision
should have been given by a three-member bench since Justice Asif
Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed’s jurisdiction had expired after
their dissenting judgement on April 20.
“By signing the final order of the court” on July 28,
Justice Ahmed and Justice Khosa “have actually passed two judgements
in the same case, which is unprecedented in judicial history,” reads
the appeal petition.
“On the face of the record, there are four final judgements
passed in this case; the first of these final judgements being the
minority judgement dated 20.04.2017 of the two honourable members of
the originally constituted 5-member bench, the second being the majority
judgement dated 20.04.2017 passed by the 3-member bench, the third
judgement dated 29.07.2017 again passed by the 3-member bench of
this court, and the fourth being the Final Order of the court dated
28.07.2017 passed by the originally constituted 5-member bench,”
the appeal said.
The petition stated that without prejudice to the proceedings
grounds, it is submitted that final order of the court, July 28, 2017
suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record on account of being
violative, inter alia, of Article 175 (2) and (3), Articles 4, 9,
10A and 25 of the constitution, and in breach of the principle of
trichotomy of powers which forms the salient features of our
It further stated that the request made by five-member bench
to the chief justice for nominating a judge of the Supreme Court to
supervise and monitor implementation of final order of the court
sought to be reviewed and oversee the proceedings conducted by
National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Accountability Court in
the matters pertaining to the investigation and trial of the
references directed in final order of the court to be filed against
respondents is tantamount to arrogating to the apex court the role
of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and court
of ultimate appeal all at once, which is repugnant to the very basis
of the criminal justice system in Pakistan, and it is submitted with
respect, a brazen violation of the petitioner’s and his family members’
fundamental right to fair trial as embodied in Article 10A of the
Constitution, the principle of due process as guaranteed by Article
4, the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 25, the
fundamental right to life as secured by Article 9, the fundamental
right to dignity of man as guaranteed by Article 14 and even the
Constitutional norms of separation of powers as sanctified by this
court innumerable judgments and as such the said request is
manifestly per incuriam and needs to be expunged from the final
order of the court.
The appreciation and commendations of the joint investigation
team (JIT) members as much as the overseeing the investigation by the
NAB is tantamount to foreclosing the right of the petitioner
to challenge the quality, fairness, independence and legality
of the investigation already carried out by the JIT members and
any further investigation that may be conducted by the NAB, or to
establish the malafides and gross illegalities committed by the
JIT members, or the NAB authorities, if any, as no learned judge
of the Accountability Court can dare allow the defence counsel to
conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witness with respect
to the credibility of the investigating officers and the investigation
that already bears the explicit as well as the implicit approval, appreciation and commendations of the apex court and even if so
allowed to render any judgment or findings pursuant to such cross-examination that may belie or negate the observations so made by
this court.