Pakistan President approves Supreme Court review of judgements bill, clearing way for Nawaz Sharif’s return

Pakistan President approves Supreme Court review of judgements bill, clearing way for Nawaz Sharif's return



ISLAMABAD: Pakistan President Arif Alvi has signed the Supreme Court Review of Judgements and Orders Act 2023, clearing the first step for Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Nawaz Sharif to exercise the right of appeal against their lifetime disqualifications within 60 days, Samaa English reported.
Samaa English is the English language portal of Pakistan’s news channel Samaa TV.
Under this new law, now an appeal can be filed against the court decisions in cases under Article 184(3). The law now applies to past verdicts as well.
Pakistan’s President approved the new law on Friday.
Legal experts said that now PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen will also be able to exercise the right of appeal against their lifetime disqualifications within 60 days.
Legal expert Kamran Murtaza says the law will benefit everyone equally.
“Anyone can take one-time benefit under the law. Even if that time has passed, a person can say that person A was given the benefit today, the same thing happened to me yesterday. Otherwise, it will be discrimination and Article 25 will be violated,” he added.
The law further says the appeals will be heard by a bench larger than the adjudicating bench, reported Samaa English.
Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan has submitted a copy and notification of the law to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will now hear appeals in the cases under Article 184(3).
In 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office in a landmark decision on the Panama Papers case, reported Dawn.
Meanwhile, today, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan told the chief justice of Pakistan that the president had assented to the review of judgments bill, and now it had turned into a law.
As per the law, he added, a review petition could only be heard by a larger bench and raised objections to the three-judge panel hearing the case, according to Samaa English.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *