Classifieds | Archives | Jobs | About TGT | Contact | Subscribe
 | 
Last updated 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Printer Friendly Version | TGT@Twitter | RSS Feed |
HOME LOCAL MIDEAST ASIA WORLD BUSINESS SPORT OPINION WRITERS
Khosa says Sharif’s disqualification was unanimous decision
September 14, 2017
 Print    Send to Friend

ISLAMABAD: While hearing review petitions of deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children against July 28 judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who headed the five-member bench, made clear on Wednesday that all judges on the panel had agreed on this verdict, disqualifying the then premier.

He said that the content of the minority judgment of July 20 where the verdict was 3-2 and majority judgment of July 28 may have been different, but they both reached the same conclusion: Nawaz Sharif stands disqualified.

The same five-judge bench that had decided the Panama case began hearing on the review petitions filed by Sharif, his children Maryam, Hussain and Hassan, and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

Sharif’s lawyer Khawaja Haris argued that the two judges who had written dissenting notes against his client in the initial April 20 judgment could not have signed the verdict issued by the five-member bench on July 28.

The two dissenting judges in the April 20 order - Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmad - had signed on a “different” verdict on July 28, he stressed, after which they were no longer a part of the panel.

Justice Khosa, however, told the counsel that the final verdict had been signed by all five judges, and the bench members had previously disagreed only over the formation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

“None of the three judges who ruled in favour of further investigation on April 20 had disagreed with the minority verdict of disqualifying Sharif.”

The justice said that the two judges who ruled in favour of disqualification on April 20 did not add anything in the July 28 verdict. Dissenting judges also sign final judgments, he said, adding that similar examples existed in judicial history.

Haris said that Sharif was disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, arguing that the former prime minister should have been issued a show-cause notice to explain himself.

“Sharif should have been given the chance of a fair trial.”

The counsel also brought up the court decision to appoint a supervisory judge to oversee proceedings of the references against the Sharif family in the accountability court, saying that it was in violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments
 
Post a comment
 
Name:
Country:
City:
Email:
Comment:
 
    
    
Related Stories
Ousted PM gets 7-day relief from court
ISLAMABAD: An accountability court of Islamabad on Wednesday allowed ousted Prime Minister exemption from appearance before it for seven days while it granted immunity to..
Ousted PM accuses judges of harbouring hatred against him
ISLAMABAD: Commenting on the detailed judgment on his review petition handed down by the Supreme Court, ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif accused judges of harbouring ha..
Court refuses to club 3 references against Sharif
ISLAMABAD: An accountability court in Islamabad on Wednesday rejected an application of the ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif for clubbing the three references filed by ..
Ousted PM tried to fool court, people: Judgement
ISLAMABAD: In its 23-page detailed judgment on the Sharif family’s review petitions, the Supreme Court has stated that ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif tried to fool it..
NAB submits report to SC in Panama case
ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor has submitted the weekly progress report to Supreme Court (SC) judge Justice Ijazul Hassan regarding procee..
FRONTPAGE
 
GALLERY
 
PANORAMA
 
TIME OUT
 
SPORT
 
 
Advertise | Copyright