Former prime minister, Sharif family hold law and constitution in highest esteem: Marriyum

429

ISLAMABAD, Sep 25 (APP): Minister of State for Information,

Broadcasting and National Heritage Marriyum Aurangzeb Monday said
that former Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif held the law and
constitution in the highest esteem, which was amply demonstrated
by him and his family during the hearing of their case in the apex
court.
She said that the family also adopted a legal and
constitutional course for filing a review petition against the
decision of the Supreme Court.
In a statement issued here, the minister of state said
that the members of the Sharif family enjoyed fundamental rights
like all other citizens of Pakistan and the law and constitution
would have to take care of their rights also.
Referring to the return of the former Prime Minister to face
the cases in the Ehtesab Court, she said that her claim that the
Lion would return and whole of Pakistan would witness it, had been
vindicated.
Marriyum observed that the entire nation was asking the
question, how come a case that commenced with the allegations of
money laundering ended on the work permit (Iqama) ?
Referring to Imran Khan’s political escapades, she observed
that he abused state institutions, derided them, became absconder
from the courts and in the end tendered apology which he said he
would never ask for. She said that Imran had done nothing during the
last four years except for weakening the state institutions through
his bizarre indiscretions.
The minister said that the Ehtesab Commission in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
had been locked to cover reckless corruption of the government which remained shut even today.
Marriyum said that those who cried hoarse in the Supreme Court about
corruption were themselves running away from the courts.
Pointing out Imran’s confession about betting on a cricket
match in his book `A Personal History’ to earn money to clear the
losses of his brother-in-law and wiping of the debt of his party,
she said that he was guilty of gambling but maintained that he only
rendered advice to his brother-in-law. What an innocence, she
remarked?