Nawaz wants immunity from corruption, fraud, says Imran


Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan said on Tuesday that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif wanted immunity from corruption, lies and fraud, but his address in parliament ran contrary to the facts.

Talking to media on the Supreme Court premises after the Panamagate hearing, Khan said he had not apologised to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and that all such media reports were baseless.

“I have not tendered any apology to the EC and all such media reports are unfounded.

“The prime minister had no idea that he would be held accountable in the Supreme Court,” he added.

He said that the Prime Minister had read from a written text in the parliament, he had not spoken extempore, and so his speech could not be ignored during proceedings of the Panama Leaks case.

“Initially he said all of the family worked together. Now he is saying they are all separate entities,” he added.

During the hearing, Prime Minister’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had clarified that the PM had not sought immunity under Article 248 of the constitution. “The speech could not be presented as evidence in the case”, he had argued.

Khan also expressed solidarity with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) after its lawyers stopped political leaders from entering the Supreme Court here on Tuesday.

The SCBA lawyers had established a cordon, and were demanding an NOC for land acquisition of a housing society.

“I stand with the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). All the pledges made with them should be fulfilled,” Khan said.

Earlier, PTI Leader Shafqat Mahmood and the Protocol Officer for the State Minister for Information and Broadcasting Marryam Aurangzeb were stopped by the lawyers from entering the Supreme Court.


Senior PTI leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi said the press release issued by the Prime Minister’s House and PML-N’s counsel’s arguments in the Panamagate case were in conflict with each other.

He said that the PM’s House press release stated he was not seeking immunity on the one hand, while on the other hand arguments of the counsel for PM focussed on Article 66 wherein immunity for MP was explained.

He said that cross questioning was continuing since the last three days but no cross questioning could be made on PM’s speech in the House.