Sharif family's ownership of London flats prior to 2006 yet to be established: SC
Cannot deliver judgement on assumptions, judge tells JI counsel
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif gestures at supporters. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court observed on Friday that it was yet to be established whether the Sharifs owned their London properties before 2006.
Referring to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's interviews, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that the PM continued to do business and politics together till 1997.
Justice Khosa, who is heading a five-judge larger bench of the apex court in Panamagate case, told Jamaat-e-Islami counsel Taufiq Asif that unless the conflict of interest was established mere allegations of the premier’s involvement in business would not take the petitioner anywhere.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the JI counsel whether there was any code of conduct prohibiting the prime minister from partaking in business activities while remaining in office.
PM’s qualification a matter of public importance, says Justice Khosa
When the counsel referred to the Zafar Ali Shah case judgment, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that this was a submission by the AGP that could not be used against the Sharifs. Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh told the JI counsel that they could not deliver a verdict based on assumptions.
Opposition moves privilege motion against PM’s ‘untruthful’ speech in NA
Discussing Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, Justice Khosa had earlier observed that adjudicating the qualification of PM Nawaz as a lawmaker was a matter of public importance.
Justice Khosa on Thursday said the post-election controversy about disqualification of a parliamentarian could be challenged before the National Assembly speaker and if he rejected the reference then a writ petition could be filed.
Another judge Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if the court convicted an MP on the basis of criminal law then he would be disqualified and remain stigmatised forever. “[But] how the court can give decision on the basis of an assumption as it will have far-reaching implications,” he asked.
Later, the apex court adjourned hearing of the case till Monday (January 23).
The Supreme Court observed on Friday that it was yet to be established whether the Sharifs owned their London properties before 2006.
Referring to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's interviews, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that the PM continued to do business and politics together till 1997.
Justice Khosa, who is heading a five-judge larger bench of the apex court in Panamagate case, told Jamaat-e-Islami counsel Taufiq Asif that unless the conflict of interest was established mere allegations of the premier’s involvement in business would not take the petitioner anywhere.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the JI counsel whether there was any code of conduct prohibiting the prime minister from partaking in business activities while remaining in office.
PM’s qualification a matter of public importance, says Justice Khosa
When the counsel referred to the Zafar Ali Shah case judgment, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that this was a submission by the AGP that could not be used against the Sharifs. Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh told the JI counsel that they could not deliver a verdict based on assumptions.
Opposition moves privilege motion against PM’s ‘untruthful’ speech in NA
Discussing Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, Justice Khosa had earlier observed that adjudicating the qualification of PM Nawaz as a lawmaker was a matter of public importance.
Justice Khosa on Thursday said the post-election controversy about disqualification of a parliamentarian could be challenged before the National Assembly speaker and if he rejected the reference then a writ petition could be filed.
Another judge Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if the court convicted an MP on the basis of criminal law then he would be disqualified and remain stigmatised forever. “[But] how the court can give decision on the basis of an assumption as it will have far-reaching implications,” he asked.
Later, the apex court adjourned hearing of the case till Monday (January 23).