Sharif family requests SC to postpone hearing of its review petition

Argues that their review petition should be heard by five judges instead of three

ISLAMABAD: Ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his children have raised objections to the Supreme Court’s decision to form a three-member bench to hear the Sharif family’s review petitions against its July 28 verdict in the Panama Papers case.

On Friday, the apex court had decided that a three-judge bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh and Justice Ijazul Ahsan will hear the review petitions filed by Nawaz Sharif and his children on September 12.

However, on Saturday, the Sharif family submitted an application in the apex court through their lawyer raising objections to the listing of the review petition case before the three-judge bench and requesting for a postponement of the September 12 hearing.

A senior legal team member told The Express Tribune that when a larger bench of five judges announced the verdict, which ousted Nawaz on July 28, then the review petition should also be fixed before the same bench.



He said the Sharif family argued that since the order of the five-member bench was final, their review petition should also be heard by five judges instead of three.

“In terms of the legal and constitutional dispensation of the State of Pakistan, a learned bench of lesser strength cannot upset or preempt the decision of a larger bench of this august court,” the application added.

The Sharif family had submitted separate review petitions against the verdict which led to Nawaz’s ouster from the premiership and the National Accountability Bureau filing references against him, his two sons, daughter and son-in-law.

Nawaz argues that the first petition contains 19 reasons which provide proof for why he should not have been disqualified, and merit the SC recalling its July 28 verdict against him. He has also pleaded that the court suspend the operation of the judgment till the final decision on his review petition.



In a separate review petition filed later, the former prime minister stated that the disqualification could have only been ordered on the basis of preponderant evidence. The court gave the verdict over a matter which was not even mentioned in the application, he argued.