Nawaz Sharif challenged SC order
03 December, 2017
ISLAMABAD: Ousted PM Nawaz Sharif on Saturday challenged the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s order of not entertaining his petition against filing of multiple references by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in line with the Panama Papers verdict.
The SC registrar’s office had returned Nawaz Sharif petition after by raising objections. Earlier, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Saqib Nisar, on November 16, had also dismissed his appeal after maintaining the objections raised by the registrar office.
The former premier, through his counsel Khawaja Haris, filed a constitutional petition under Article-184(3) of the constitution at the apex court challenging Justice Nisar’s verdict.
“Since the petitioner’s case is identically placed, the judge in chambers (CJP) ought to have treated the petitioner’s constitution petition on the principles of equality, as well as of due process, and accordingly set aside the order of the registrar and referred the petitioner’s constitution petition for consideration by the larger bench on this question of law,” said the petition.
It added: “Even otherwise, it is trite law that there is no bar on the jurisdiction of this honourable court under Article-184(3) read with Article-187 of the constitution in respect of a judgment which is per incuriam (refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant).”
“This view was confirmed by this apex court in the judgment reported as re-application by Abdul Rehman Farooq Pirzada; PLD 2013 Supreme Court 829, wherein it was held that this honourable ’court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article-184(3) read with Article-187 of the constitution, has unlimited powers to revisit a judgment which is per incuriam, irrespective of the mode and manner in which it is brought to the notice of this honourable court,” said the petition.
“In a case where a judgment passed by this court is challenged on the ground of it being per incuriam, this court is under a constitutional duty and obligation to hear the matter on merits and such petition cannot be disposed [of] by a judge in chambers.” It is further contended that the order forces the petitioner to face the rigours of multiple prosecutions for a single offence, which is tantamount to violation of his fundamental right under Article 10-A of the constitution.
“The impugned order exposes the petitioner to triple jeopardy in contravention of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article-13 of the constitution.” “The order is also a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles-9, 14 and 25 of the constitution and is liable to be set aside,” said the petition.
“The order dated 16.11.2017, passed by the honourable judge in chambers, suffers from errors of law floating on the surface of the record, and is tantamount to denying the petitioner his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles-9, 10-A, 13, 14 and 25 of the constitution, besides being in derogation of Article 4.”