The Registrar Office of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday cancelled the cause list for a division bench that was supposed to take up a plea filed by Shehbaz Sharif in 2019 seeking the removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL) following a court order, a private TV channel reported.
The petition was fixed for hearing a day earlier but the registrar’s office dropped the case owing to the unavailability of the two-member bench’s head Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi.
It merits mentioning here that the last hearing on the issue was held on January 20, 2020. Since then, the case has remained unheard. It is pertinent to mention that on November 16, 2019, the Lahore High Court had allowed ex-premier Nawaz Sharif for travelling abroad for four weeks for his medical treatment with an observation that the duration of his stay will depend upon the medical reports.
The government, however, had refused to remove his name from the ECL and placed a condition of indemnity bonds worth Rs7 billion in return for permission to go abroad for medical treatment. The PML-N at the time had rejected this demand and went to the high court for relief. Subsequently, the LHC had allowed Nawaz to go to London for medical treatment in Nov 2019 without submitting any bonds. The LHC order was followed by a notification from the interior ministry allowing him to travel abroad in light of the LHC’s order. A ministry memorandum had said Nawaz’s name would continue to stay in the ECL; however, he had been granted a one-time permission to travel for four weeks.
At the time, the high court admitted the petition for the removal of the name from the ECL. The division bench had formulated five points that it would consider while hearing the petition. The case was supposed to be heard in Jan 2020.
Whether a convict can be excluded or included in the list of Exit from Pakistan (Control) under 2010 rules.
Whether the condition attached to the impugned memorandum can be separated or is a part and parcel of it.
Whether any conditions be attached unilaterally by the federal government in the impugned memorandum on the basis of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 and the rules made thereunder. Whether the impugned order can be passed for a critically ill convict only on humanitarian grounds. Whether the conditions (indemnity bonds) imposed are permissible even after passing of the orders of bail and suspension of the sentence? If yes, will it strengthen the court’s order in any manner? The court had to ponder on these points at the hearing.
