Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Information and Broadcast Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan said that order of the Lahore High Court (LHC) regarding Nawaz Sharif’s name in Exit Control List (ECL) proved that government stance was based on principles and law.
The SAPM in a tweet said that the LHC decision reinforced the government stance by 80 percent over the issue, as the conditions imposed by the government had not been rejected by the court, but only suspended to decide in January.
Firdous expressed the hope that people distributing sweets would not cry on the decision later on, like in Panama case. She also hoped that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leadership and doctors would update the nation on Nawaz Sharif’s health just like they were updating nowadays, and extended good wishes for Nawaz’s health.
Meanwhile, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar also said that order of the Lahore High Court on a plea for the removal of Nawaz Sharif’s name from the ECL vindicated the government’s stance on the issue.
Addressing a press conference along with Attorney General of Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan at the Press Information Department (PID), he said as per law the name of a convict could not be removed from the ECL. However, permission was granted to Nawaz Sharif on humanitarian grounds to let him proceed abroad for medical treatment.
He said the cabinet had decided to grant one-time-permission to Nawaz Sharif, specifically for medical treatment. He said this permission was duration-bound for four weeks.
The Special Assistant said the Sharif family had a precedent of not returning to the country when granted permissions to go abroad. He said the amount of indemnity bond for Nawaz Sharif was determined on the basis of sentences awarded to him in various cases.
Shahzad Akbar said violation of an undertaking given by PML-N President Shehbaz Sharif to the Lahore High Court was a criminal offence. He said the verdict of court would be discussed in the cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
He pointed out that there were four basic points of the judicial decision.
“A name of any convicted person cannot be taken out from the ECL; however only a one-time permission was granted to Nawaz Sharif on humanitarian grounds,” he said, adding that the court had obtained a written undertaking from them instead of an indemnity bond.
“The first point was that only a one-time permission should be granted, the second was that Nawaz Sharif would travel abroad for treatment, the third was that he would return to face the cases against him and the fourth was to guarantee his return to Pakistan,” he maintained.
He said that Sharif’s sons and the father-in-law of his daughter were fugitives. “He is not sadiq and ameen and obtained a certificate for that from the court.”
He said that the indemnity bond was to be given by Shehbaz Sharif; whereas the court had taken written undertaking from both of them. “A government representative can verify medical certificates, and the written undertaking has guaranteed their return,” he said, adding that if violated, this would be a serious crime.
Meanwhile, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), Anwar Mansoor Khan said that the decision of the LHC, which allowed Nawaz Sharif to travel abroad for medical treatment, was purely based on humanitarian grounds and merits of the case were yet to be decided as no legal reason was given in the order.
He said it was an interim order of the court, which did not reject the government’s stance, as the case would be resumed for final decision to look into merits of the case in January 2020.
He said the undertaking before the court of law had more value than indemnity bonds the government was asking for, and if the signatories, Nawaz Sharif and Opposition Leader Shehbaz Sharif, did not fulfil their commitment to the courts then they could be trailed under Contempt of Court Ordinance and Article 61, 62-B of the constitution.
He said that after the written order of the court, the matter would be discussed in cabinet, which would decide whether it should file an appeal or not.
