- Ex-PM wants constitutional petition No 29 of 2016 be dismissed
- Counsel requests final order in Panama case should be recalled
- PBC member sees weight in petition, says it should be accepted
Former prime minister Muhammad 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 the review petitions in the apex court through Advocate-on-record Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah. Haris prayed the court to accept petitions and the final order passed by the court in the Panama Papers case should be recalled and the Constitutional petition No 29 of 2016 be dismissed.
“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,” he stated.
Haris also submitted relevant documents about the UAE Iqama of Nawaz Sharif and 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 Khosa and Justice Gulzar have actually passed two judgements in the same case, which is unprecedented in judicial history. On the face of the record, there are four final judgements passed in this case,” reads the appeal petition.
“The first of these final judgements being the minority judgement dated April 20, 2017, of the two members of the originally-constituted five-member bench, the second being the majority judgement dated April 20, 2017, passed by the three-member bench, the third judgement dated July 29, 2017, again passed by the three-member bench and the fourth being the final order dated July 28, 2017.”
The petition stated that without prejudice to the proceedings grounds, it is submitted that final order of the court 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 constitution.
It said that the request made by five-member bench to the chief justice for nominating a Supreme Court judge to supervise and monitor implementation of the final order sought to be reviewed and oversee the proceedings conducted by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the accountability court pertaining to the investigation and trial of the references is tantamount to arrogating to the court the role of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge jury and court of ultimate appeal all at once which is repugnant to the basis of the criminal justice system.
“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 and as such the said request is manifestly per incuriam and needs to be expunged from the final order.”
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 or to establish the malafides and gross illegalities committed by the JIT members, or the NAB authorities, if any, as no learned judge can dare allow the defence counsel to conduct cross-examination.
EXPERTS’ OPINION: Former Pakistan Bar Council president Barrister Ali Zafar said that as many as 99% of the review petitions were thrown to trash-bin. He said that the review petitions were only considered when the argument raises questions on the illegalities in the judgment.
“Important to note is whether the judgment is being challenged rightly and in accordance to the constitution,” he said. “After reading the review petition, it petition can be considered as an appeal to a case but it certainly is not a healthy review,” he said.
He claimed that after protesting against the judgment in the very case, this review petition carries no weight and can easily be deemed as worthless. Pakistan Bar Council Member Kamran Murtaza said that this petition has weight and should be accepted, as it does require legal remedy.
“The review petition, though not as a whole, but carries aspects that need further trial,” he said. The former prime minister took to roads in protest against the disqualification. It would be interesting to see the outcome of the review petition in the midst of the four-day homecoming rally of the ruling party. -Raja Faisal