An election tribunal of the Lahore High Court on Friday reserved its verdict in an election petition to decide the eligibility of PML-N Chief Mian Nawaz Sharif to contest by-election from NA-123 Lahore.
The tribunal comprising Justice Akram Qureshi and Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim heard arguments of the petitioners' counsel and a senior lawyer Akram Sheikh, who extended his arguments on behalf of public at large.
Akram Sheikh who represented the public, got permission from the tribunal saying that as the matter was of a public importance so he wanted to represent the masses and the voters of the constituencies.
The courtroom was jam-packed with lawyers particularly belonging to the PML-N and Ashtar Ausaf counsel of Sharif brothers also attended the proceedings but he did not argue.
The tribunal observed "We are not impressed by the presence of formers judges." When they were informed that former president of Pakistan former Justice Rafiq Tarar and former Chief Justice of Lahore High Court Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman were present in the courtroom.
Arguing on the jurisdiction of the election tribunal, Sheikh said election tribunal could not receive the evidence and the lengthy investigation cannot be made. Defending the eligibility of Mian Nawaz Sharif, he said every citizen of Pakistan has a fundamental right to contest election.
Requesting the lawyer to summarise his arguments Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim asked him to satisfy the court on a question that a sentence can be pardoned by the president but not the conviction.
Citing Article 45 of the Constitution, Akram Sheikh said the president has enjoyed unfettered powers to grant pardon and this power cannot be assailed before any forum including court of law. He said Nawaz was granted pardon by the then president Rafiq Tarar and once the pardon is granted could not be withdrawn.
Citing Canadian Court of law, which endorsed a pardon, president of Pakistan awarded to a convict of plane hijacking said the court allowing nationality to a highjacker held that pardon means complete exoneration after which the convict becomes innocent. Sheikh concluded his arguments saying that could the court deprive this country from its bright future in shape of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.
Meanwhile, appearing on behalf of the state, a deputy attorney general informed the court despite repeated efforts he could not get the document of regarding the pardon awarded to the respondent-Nawaz Sharif and refused to argue.
About the objections of applicants that the respondents Nawaz and Shahbaz had committed contempt of court by expressing derogatory remarks against the judiciary, the Advocate General said the contempt of court cannot be established until a court of competent jurisdiction does not convict a person.
To another objection of being defaulters, he said the appeals of the respondents against several banks were still pending before different courts so they could not be treated as defaulters.
Advocate General, who was representing the provincial government, concluded his arguments saying that the court should consider the fact that all the candidates receiving party tickets from the respondents returned to the assemblies by contesting election, therefore, the court should allow them to contest election and let the masses to decide their fates.
Earlier, the appellants' counsels commonly argued that Nawaz could not contest election because an Anti-Terrorism Court, under section 402-B of the PPC read with section 7 of ATA had awarded him life imprisonment and fine of Rs 500,000.
They said that his conviction as well as the sentence was upheld by the learned appellate court in special criminal appeal. Besides, he was convicted by an accountability court, Attock Fort, in a reference decided on July 2007 under section 10 read with Section 9-A (V) of the NAB Ordinance was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine for Rs 20 million, they said.
They further said the accountability court had also declared Nawaz Sharif disqualified for 21 years from seeking or being elected, chosen, appointed as member or representative of any public office or any authority of the Local Government of Pakistan.
The appellants said in both the cases, Sharif had been convicted by competent courts and the convictions were still intact because these were not set aside by any court till date. It was a settled law that only sentence awarding punishment was pardoned, reprieved, respite, remitted, suspended or commuted but the conviction remained intact.
They also alleged that Sharif had been publicly propagating his biased opinion and acting prejudicial to the integrity of the judiciary, besides defaming and ridiculing the armed forces.
The appellants said Sharif was also a defaulter of consortium of National Bank of Pakistan, Habib Bank Ltd, United Bank Ltd, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Muslim Commercial Bank, PICIC Bank of Punjab and the first Punjab Modaraba.
Assailing the candidature of Nawaz Sharif appellant submitted that he ditched the court by claiming that he fulfilled qualification to contest the election in line with Article 62 of the constitution.
While acting Advocate General Punjab Hanif Khatana supporting the arguments of Akram Sheikh interpreted the word of pardon as exoneration. About the objections of applicants that the respondents Nawaz and Shahbaz had committed contempt of court by expressing derogatory remarks against the judiciary, the AG said the contempt of court couldn't be established until a court of competent jurisdiction does not convict a person.
To another objection of being defaulters, he said the appeals of the respondents against several banks were still pending before different courts so they could not be treated as defaulters. The petitions against Sharif brothers were filed by Noor Elahi, Khurram Shah, Zulfiqar Ali Ghumman and Shahid Orakzai.
The acceptance of nomination papers of Nawaz Sharif was challenged from NA-123, Lahore while of Shahbaz from PP-124, Sialkot, PP-48, Bhakkar and PP-141, Lahore.
Meanwhile, the tribunal allowed Shahid Orakzai to contest by-election from PP-10, Rawalpindi. Counsel of Sharif brothers Ashtar Ausaf also attended the proceedings but he did not argue.