ahlam1399
08-26-2017, 11:11 PM
https://www.thenews.com.pk/assets/uploads/akhbar/2017-08-26/l_226143_060427_print.jpg ISLAMABAD: The family members of Nawaz Sharif on Friday challenged the verdict, delivered by the Supreme Court on July 28, 2017, disqualifying him for not being honest and directing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file references against him and others in his family.
Children of the former premier including his daughter Maryam Nawaz, sons Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, and son-in-law Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar filed a review petition in the SC, praying for setting aside its order passed in the Panama Papers case, and dismissing the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
They stated in their petitions that the court verdict carried errors and must be reviewed. They prayed that the court should suspend implementation of the final order. The Sharif family members filed the review petitions under Article 188 of the constitution, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, against the judgment of the apex court, delivered on July 28, 2017.
Earlier, ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his close relative and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had also challenged the SC verdict. Hussain, Hassan, Maryam and Captain Safdar have each filed two petitions — one challenging the judgement of the five-member SC bench, and the other against the verdict reserved by the three-member Panama Papers implementation bench.
The family members, in their review petitions, contended that no order for filing of references against them could have been made on the basis of the report submitted by the joint investigation team (JIT) on 10-7-2017.
The said report could not be considered to be investigation in terms of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 which is a sine qua non for filing of a reference before an accountability court, they submitted.
They said that no order for filing of a reference could be made prior to the conclusion of the investigation in terms of the NAB reference, 1999. Consequently, they contended that the direction made by the apex court in its judgment dated 28 July, 2017 that references be filed against them was contrary to the scheme of the NAB Ordinance, 1999.
The family members of Nawaz Sharif submitted that without prejudice to the foregoing, that the investigation carried out by the JIT suffered from bias, which was manifest in the failure of the JIT to confront them with questions and materials that the JIT considered incriminating or important to its investigation.
They said the apex court might have powers to direct an agency to perform its functions and discharge its responsibilities in accordance with the law, but there was no law that vests in this court, the authority to itself assume the functions of any such agency or institution.
Referring to the order of the apex court, directing NAB to file references “on the basis of the material collected and referred to by the JIT and such other material as may be available with the FIA and NAB… or that may come before it pursuant to the mutual legal assistance requests, sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions”, the children of Nawaz Sharif declared the direction an encroachment upon and was tantamount to assumption of the authority of NAB, which again was not permissible, inter alia, in view of the provisions of Article 175 (2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Similarly, they contended that the Constitution did not confer upon the apex court any jurisdiction to superintend and oversee the proceedings of the court constituting subordinate judiciary.
“The only provision that confers the jurisdiction to superintend the courts comprising subordinate judiciary is Article 203 of the Constitution, and this provision does not confer any such jurisdiction on this august court,” the petitioners submitted.
They questioned as to how the apex court could order NAB to file a reference against Captain Safdar when “there is no accusation or proof against [him] for the purchase of London flat. Not the slightest evidence has been brought on record to link Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar to the acquisition or ownership of the aforesaid properties,” they contended adding that the direction that a reference be necessarily filed against Muhammad Safdar was without any basis whatsoever and was liable to be reviewed and set aside.
They further submitted 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.
The court order, signed by the five judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, two of whom (Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmad) had rendered their final judgments in the titled petition on April 20, 2017 and thereby become functus officio as regards proceedings in the titled petition, they submitted.
The family members of Nawaz Sharif submitted that three judges of the bench, who supervised implementation of the April 20 verdict and oversaw the investigations, should not have ruled on the JIT report.
Similarly, they contended that the appointment by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, judge of the apex court as the ‘monitoring judge’ for the proceedings of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and accountability courts was against the fundamental rights of the applicants, and violates Articles 4, 10-A, 25 and 175 of the Constitution.
The accountability courts would not be able to proceed freely after the monitoring judge’s appointment, the petitions claim. There is no provision in the law and Constitution that allows supervision of the proceedings of accountability courts, they state, adding that the court can only rule that the accountability courts work according to the law.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/3frTWH4QsyI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/3frTWH4QsyI/226143-Nawazs-children-son-in-law-also-challenge-SC-verdict)
Children of the former premier including his daughter Maryam Nawaz, sons Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, and son-in-law Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar filed a review petition in the SC, praying for setting aside its order passed in the Panama Papers case, and dismissing the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
They stated in their petitions that the court verdict carried errors and must be reviewed. They prayed that the court should suspend implementation of the final order. The Sharif family members filed the review petitions under Article 188 of the constitution, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, against the judgment of the apex court, delivered on July 28, 2017.
Earlier, ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his close relative and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had also challenged the SC verdict. Hussain, Hassan, Maryam and Captain Safdar have each filed two petitions — one challenging the judgement of the five-member SC bench, and the other against the verdict reserved by the three-member Panama Papers implementation bench.
The family members, in their review petitions, contended that no order for filing of references against them could have been made on the basis of the report submitted by the joint investigation team (JIT) on 10-7-2017.
The said report could not be considered to be investigation in terms of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 which is a sine qua non for filing of a reference before an accountability court, they submitted.
They said that no order for filing of a reference could be made prior to the conclusion of the investigation in terms of the NAB reference, 1999. Consequently, they contended that the direction made by the apex court in its judgment dated 28 July, 2017 that references be filed against them was contrary to the scheme of the NAB Ordinance, 1999.
The family members of Nawaz Sharif submitted that without prejudice to the foregoing, that the investigation carried out by the JIT suffered from bias, which was manifest in the failure of the JIT to confront them with questions and materials that the JIT considered incriminating or important to its investigation.
They said the apex court might have powers to direct an agency to perform its functions and discharge its responsibilities in accordance with the law, but there was no law that vests in this court, the authority to itself assume the functions of any such agency or institution.
Referring to the order of the apex court, directing NAB to file references “on the basis of the material collected and referred to by the JIT and such other material as may be available with the FIA and NAB… or that may come before it pursuant to the mutual legal assistance requests, sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions”, the children of Nawaz Sharif declared the direction an encroachment upon and was tantamount to assumption of the authority of NAB, which again was not permissible, inter alia, in view of the provisions of Article 175 (2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Similarly, they contended that the Constitution did not confer upon the apex court any jurisdiction to superintend and oversee the proceedings of the court constituting subordinate judiciary.
“The only provision that confers the jurisdiction to superintend the courts comprising subordinate judiciary is Article 203 of the Constitution, and this provision does not confer any such jurisdiction on this august court,” the petitioners submitted.
They questioned as to how the apex court could order NAB to file a reference against Captain Safdar when “there is no accusation or proof against [him] for the purchase of London flat. Not the slightest evidence has been brought on record to link Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar to the acquisition or ownership of the aforesaid properties,” they contended adding that the direction that a reference be necessarily filed against Muhammad Safdar was without any basis whatsoever and was liable to be reviewed and set aside.
They further submitted 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.
The court order, signed by the five judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, two of whom (Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmad) had rendered their final judgments in the titled petition on April 20, 2017 and thereby become functus officio as regards proceedings in the titled petition, they submitted.
The family members of Nawaz Sharif submitted that three judges of the bench, who supervised implementation of the April 20 verdict and oversaw the investigations, should not have ruled on the JIT report.
Similarly, they contended that the appointment by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, judge of the apex court as the ‘monitoring judge’ for the proceedings of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and accountability courts was against the fundamental rights of the applicants, and violates Articles 4, 10-A, 25 and 175 of the Constitution.
The accountability courts would not be able to proceed freely after the monitoring judge’s appointment, the petitions claim. There is no provision in the law and Constitution that allows supervision of the proceedings of accountability courts, they state, adding that the court can only rule that the accountability courts work according to the law.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/3frTWH4QsyI
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/3frTWH4QsyI/226143-Nawazs-children-son-in-law-also-challenge-SC-verdict)