LHC adjourns plea against Nawaz, Abbasi till Nov 19 | Pakistan Today

LHC adjourns plea against Nawaz, Abbasi till Nov 19

LAHORE: A Lahore High Court (LHC) full bench on Monday adjourned till November 19 the hearing of a petition seeking action against former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

The bench, headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, heard the petition, filed by Amina Malik, seeking strict action against Nawaz for “attempting to defame state institutions” through his alleged anti-state interview, and Abbasi for “not honouring his oath of office” by disclosing minutes of a meeting to his party leader.

At the outset of the proceedings, Abbasi and journalist Cyril Almeida, along with their counsels, appeared before the bench.

Nawaz’s counsel Naseer Bhutta submitted that application for exemption from hearing had been filed on the behalf of his client.

At this, Justice Mazahar observed that the application was incomplete as affidavit had not been submitted along with it.

The counsel assured that the affidavit would be filed in compliance with the court directions to fulfil the legal requirement.

The bench was further apprised that Abbasi and Almeida were present in the court in response to a query.

Almeida’s counsel submitted that his client wanted to go abroad and did not have dual nationality.

At this, Justice Mazahar directed the counsel to file an application for the purpose, observing that it would be decided on in accordance with the law.

Subsequently, the bench adjourned the hearing till November 19.

It merits a mention here that the petitioner had submitted that Nawaz Sharif on May 11, 2018, during his interview to an English newspaper, gave a “misleading” statement about the Mumbai attacks.

The petitioner had further said that a meeting of the National Security Council was held to discuss the misleading statement, following which, Abbasi, the then prime minister, had met Nawaz and conveyed him the minutes of the meeting.

She had alleged that the act of Abbasi was a “clear violation” of his oath as he was bound not to allow his personal interest to influence his official conduct.



Related posts

Top