Avenfield convictions challenged in LHC

Published: July 19, 2018
SHARES
Email
The petition was filed by the Lawyers’ Foundation for Justice through Advocate A K Dogar. PHOTO: FILE

The petition was filed by the Lawyers’ Foundation for Justice through Advocate A K Dogar. PHOTO: FILE

LAHORE ': Justice Ali Akbar Qureshi of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday moved to form a full bench to hear the petition against the conviction of the Sharif family in the Avenfield reference.

The petition was filed by the Lawyers’ Foundation for Justice through Advocate A K Dogar.

In the petition, Advocate Dogar questioned the validity of the NAB Ordinance of 1999 and the courts functioning under this law.

He said that the NAB court which convicted former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had no jurisdiction to decide the matter because the law under which it had been functioning had lapsed a long time ago.

Requesting the court to suspend the accountability court’s decision, he contended that the court had been functioning under a non-extant law.

According to him, former military ruler retired Gen Pervez Musharraf had promulgated the NAB ordinance with the sole objective of targeting politicians.

Reminding that the NAB law had been formulated just a month after Musharraf staged a coup in October 1998, the lawyer argued that under Article 270-AA of the Constitution through the 18th Amendment, the PCO No1 of 1999 had been declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

He pointed out that the NAB ordinance of 1999 contends that the ordinance was promulgated by then military dictator Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) No9 of 1999.

Order No.9, he said, had been promulgated to amend PCO No.1 of 1999, inserting Section 5A(1). He reminded that any ordinance promulgated by the president would not be applicable beyond a 120-day limitation prescribed under Article 89 of the Constitution.

The lawyer contended that as the PCO No.1 had been declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the amendments in it made under order No9 of 1999 should also have lapsed after the statutory limitation period of 120 days prescribed under Article 89.

Guilty as charged: Sharifs pay heavily for Avenfield flats

Certain laws, he said, which were still enforced, would continue to remain enforced unless amended by the competent legislative authority under Sub-Article 2 of Article 270-AA of the Constitution.

Contending that as the NAB ordinance had ceased to be a valid law, he requested the court to set aside all proceedings being carried out by the NAB courts under what he termed a dead law.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (2)

  • Farouk Khan
    Jul 20, 2018 - 1:13AM

    How very convenient. Some Rip Van Winkles suddenly waking up. Do they feel the same way about the obvious inequity in “jail manual” regarding the treatment meted out to some “more equals”.Recommend

  • MJS
    Jul 20, 2018 - 1:59PM

    Mr. Verma your ignorance and prejudice is for all to see – The conviction is valid and not challenged by the convicts because there is no chance of of overturning the NAB verdict Recommend

Leave Your Reply Below

Your comments may appear in The Express Tribune paper. For this reason we encourage you to provide your city. The Express Tribune does not bear any responsibility for user comments.

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

More in Pakistan