ahlam1399
01-21-2017, 12:01 PM
Says counsel makes incorrect citation in petition seeking PM’s disqualification
ISLAMABAD: A Supreme Court (SC) judge, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, on Friday asked the Jamaat-e-Islami lawyer why **t articles 62, 63 might be applied to him for lying to the apex court.
Taufeeq Asif, counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami, while citing the Zafar Ali Shah case, maintained that Nawaz Sharif was a petitioner in that case and Khalid Anwar, advocate, was his counsel. When the court checked the record, ** such case was found and the apex court asked the JI lawyer why **t articles 62, 63 might be applied to him for misguiding the court.
Earlier, the JI requested the Supreme Court (SC) to disqualify Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for **t being ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ while concealing his London properties. A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing into the Panama case.
Commencing his arguments, Taufeeq Asif, the counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami, submitted before the court that Nawaz Sharif had violated his oath he had taken both as the prime minister and MNA adding that he had also concealed his London assets while submitting his **mination papers for the election 2013, hence he should be disqualified.
He submitted that the prime minister did **t mention his London assets in the **mination papers and returns, therefore, the question arose as to whether the speech the prime minister delivered on the floor of the National Assembly did **t fall in the category of Qa**on-e-Shahadat.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked the JI counsel as to whether the apex court could give a declaration under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, Taufeeq Asif replied in the affirmative saying that the apex court could give its declaration because the prime minister did **t refuse having his assets abroad.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel to pinpoint this in the PM's speech at which the counsel replied that he had accepted this adding that children of the prime minister were said to have bought the London flats between 1993 and 1996. Justice Azmat again asked the counsel to show where the children of the prime minister had said this.
At this, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa came to rescue the counsel asking him to just simply say that the prime minister had said that those were the sources on which the London flats were purchased as Justice Khosa added that the prime minister had accepted to the extent but did **t say that he bought these flats.
The JI counsel then moved to the Zafar Ali Shah’s case saying that it was established in the said case that Nawaz Sharif owned the London flats. At this, the judges recalled to the counsel that in that case, Nawaz Sharif was **t the petitioner. However, the counsel claimed that Nawaz Sharif was the petitioner and Khalid Anwar was his lawyer in the case.
When the court checked the record, Khalid Anwar was found as counsel for other petitioners while Nawaz Sharif's name was **t found in that case for which the counsel for the JI had to face embarrassment and finally he had to take back his words on this point.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed, however, said that the counsel was taking such an important case in a light manner. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, said that the counsel’s fault could **t be placed on the client.
Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed asked the JI counsel that he gave the citation of Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case without looking into the record. “Should we **t treat you under articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution," Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the lawyer in a lighter tone at which there was a laugh in the courtroom.
The JI counsel contended that the speech delivered by the prime minister on the floor of parliament was **t the part of proceeding but it was his personal defence, hence he should be disqualified for his failure to run the administrative affairs.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that in one of his interviews, the prime minister had said that from 1981 to 1997, he did business and politics together but this could **t be taken as sufficient ground to proceed against the prime minister for failing to run the administrative affairs.
Justice Ejazul Ahsen, a**ther member of the bench, asked the counsel if there was any code of conduct which says that the prime minister can**t do business along with politics.
"There was ** restriction," the JI counsel replied. At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel as to why he was dragging the case on mere assumptions saying so far ** evidence had been filed with the court.
Meanwhile, the counsel when began to argue on the issue of oath and reading out the oath for Member of the Parliament as well as for the prime minister, who should be honest, the court time got over for which the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.
Meanwhile, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Sirajul Haq, present in the court room, gave a chit to the co-counsel who told the court that he would also be assisting the main counsel from Monday in order to make clear to the court some points.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa however, asked the co-counsel that in one case, only one lawyer could represent the petitioner. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/_OqV3sluTac
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/_OqV3sluTac/180764-Why-articles-62-63-**t-be-applied-to-you-SC-asks-JI-lawyer)
ISLAMABAD: A Supreme Court (SC) judge, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, on Friday asked the Jamaat-e-Islami lawyer why **t articles 62, 63 might be applied to him for lying to the apex court.
Taufeeq Asif, counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami, while citing the Zafar Ali Shah case, maintained that Nawaz Sharif was a petitioner in that case and Khalid Anwar, advocate, was his counsel. When the court checked the record, ** such case was found and the apex court asked the JI lawyer why **t articles 62, 63 might be applied to him for misguiding the court.
Earlier, the JI requested the Supreme Court (SC) to disqualify Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for **t being ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ while concealing his London properties. A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing into the Panama case.
Commencing his arguments, Taufeeq Asif, the counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami, submitted before the court that Nawaz Sharif had violated his oath he had taken both as the prime minister and MNA adding that he had also concealed his London assets while submitting his **mination papers for the election 2013, hence he should be disqualified.
He submitted that the prime minister did **t mention his London assets in the **mination papers and returns, therefore, the question arose as to whether the speech the prime minister delivered on the floor of the National Assembly did **t fall in the category of Qa**on-e-Shahadat.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked the JI counsel as to whether the apex court could give a declaration under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, Taufeeq Asif replied in the affirmative saying that the apex court could give its declaration because the prime minister did **t refuse having his assets abroad.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel to pinpoint this in the PM's speech at which the counsel replied that he had accepted this adding that children of the prime minister were said to have bought the London flats between 1993 and 1996. Justice Azmat again asked the counsel to show where the children of the prime minister had said this.
At this, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa came to rescue the counsel asking him to just simply say that the prime minister had said that those were the sources on which the London flats were purchased as Justice Khosa added that the prime minister had accepted to the extent but did **t say that he bought these flats.
The JI counsel then moved to the Zafar Ali Shah’s case saying that it was established in the said case that Nawaz Sharif owned the London flats. At this, the judges recalled to the counsel that in that case, Nawaz Sharif was **t the petitioner. However, the counsel claimed that Nawaz Sharif was the petitioner and Khalid Anwar was his lawyer in the case.
When the court checked the record, Khalid Anwar was found as counsel for other petitioners while Nawaz Sharif's name was **t found in that case for which the counsel for the JI had to face embarrassment and finally he had to take back his words on this point.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed, however, said that the counsel was taking such an important case in a light manner. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, said that the counsel’s fault could **t be placed on the client.
Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed asked the JI counsel that he gave the citation of Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case without looking into the record. “Should we **t treat you under articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution," Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the lawyer in a lighter tone at which there was a laugh in the courtroom.
The JI counsel contended that the speech delivered by the prime minister on the floor of parliament was **t the part of proceeding but it was his personal defence, hence he should be disqualified for his failure to run the administrative affairs.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that in one of his interviews, the prime minister had said that from 1981 to 1997, he did business and politics together but this could **t be taken as sufficient ground to proceed against the prime minister for failing to run the administrative affairs.
Justice Ejazul Ahsen, a**ther member of the bench, asked the counsel if there was any code of conduct which says that the prime minister can**t do business along with politics.
"There was ** restriction," the JI counsel replied. At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel as to why he was dragging the case on mere assumptions saying so far ** evidence had been filed with the court.
Meanwhile, the counsel when began to argue on the issue of oath and reading out the oath for Member of the Parliament as well as for the prime minister, who should be honest, the court time got over for which the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.
Meanwhile, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Sirajul Haq, present in the court room, gave a chit to the co-counsel who told the court that he would also be assisting the main counsel from Monday in order to make clear to the court some points.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa however, asked the co-counsel that in one case, only one lawyer could represent the petitioner. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until Monday.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/_OqV3sluTac
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/_OqV3sluTac/180764-Why-articles-62-63-**t-be-applied-to-you-SC-asks-JI-lawyer)