Sharif family members submit reply defending IHC verdict
SC will resume hearing NAB's appeal on November 12
Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
Members of the Sharif family submitted their reply in the Supreme Court on Saturday and defended the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) verdict.
Earlier in September, the IHC suspended the sentence of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Safdar. The Sharif family members were imprisoned following the accountability court’s July 6 verdict in Avenfield reference case.
The reply was submitted by Maryam through her counsel Amjad Pervez. The apex court will resume hearing the appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on November 12.
A three-judge SC bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, conducted the preliminary hearing of NAB’s appeals against the IHC order that resulted in the release of Nawaz and his kin.
NAB had filed three different petitions under Article 185 of the Constitution against IHC division bench’s September 19 judgment.
Members of the Sharif family submitted their reply in the Supreme Court on Saturday and defended the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) verdict.
Earlier in September, the IHC suspended the sentence of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Safdar. The Sharif family members were imprisoned following the accountability court’s July 6 verdict in Avenfield reference case.
The reply was submitted by Maryam through her counsel Amjad Pervez. The apex court will resume hearing the appeal filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on November 12.
A three-judge SC bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, conducted the preliminary hearing of NAB’s appeals against the IHC order that resulted in the release of Nawaz and his kin.
NAB had filed three different petitions under Article 185 of the Constitution against IHC division bench’s September 19 judgment.