The Sharif family had moved two separate review petitions, challenging the decisions given by a five-member bench and the other by a three-member bench of the apex court.
Similarly, counsel for Maryam, Hussain, and Hassan Nawaz also prayed the court to decide his clients' objection to the five-member bench's jurisdiction to announce the final verdict in the Panama Papers case before hearing the main review petition in the matter.
The Accountability Court has returned all the four references against Sharif family and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar that were filed by the National Accountability Court (NAB) on September 8, Geo News reported on Tuesday.
Three references were filed against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and son-in-law under Section 9A of NAB Ordinance 1999 along with its 14 sub-clauses.
However, the bench accepted Raja's plea and sent to the chief justice a request seeking formation of a five-judge bench. Therefore, the review petition against the final order should be heard in the first instance and not the review petition filed conditionally.
Soyinka disagrees with Obasanjo on restructuring
That is a long expression, or you can use a single word like restructuring; it doesn't matter in the context. Call it whatever name, what we are saying is that this nation is long-overdue for reconfiguration.
The five-member bench of the top court had disqualified Sharif from holding any public office for failing to declare a salary which he had not withdrawn as an executive director of a Dubai-based company as an asset when filing his nomination papers in 2013. Sharif's lawyer Khawaja Harris was also present during the hearing and argued in favour of a larger bench.
A Supreme Court judge will monitor the proceedings of the NAB's references.
The court had directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file references against the former PM and his children in an accountability court. The judges had said that Sharif had cheated the Parliament and the courts, and was not fit to hold the position.
The petitioners claimed that their basic rights were infringed upon as their objections to the JIT's final probe report were not taken into consideration.
It further said that the posting of a monitoring judge to oversee the implementation of the verdict was against the law, explaining that the accountability court can not operate independently after the appointment of an implementation judge. It also stated that the JIT investigation was incomplete and can not be used as a basis for filing a NAB reference.
- Irma Is Now a Tropical Storm
- William ne voulait pas d'un troisième enfant
- Couple, son killed at volcanic crater near Naples
- Wenger: Alexis isn't fat, he's serious and committed
- US warned storm could LOOP BACK towards east coast
- Steve Mnuchin says backdating tax reform 'absolutely' a possibility
- Diego Costa bientôt de retour à l'Atlético Madrid?
- After all the hassle Kangana Ranaut now wants to get married
- Charles Oakley files civil suit
- Ces joueurs d’origine africaine évoluant pour des nations européennes