A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday sought replies from the federal government and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) by Friday (today) in response to a petition of Nawaz Sharif through which he has challenged the condition of furnishing an indemnity bond for removal of his name from Exit Control List (ECL).

Earlier, the law officer when asked whether the impugned order of the government for indemnity bond was a result of any consensus or the petitioner was placed on the ECL on the recommendation of the NAB, sought time to verify from the record. The bench also asked the law officer to assist on a legal point as to whether the government had the power to put any condition for removing name from the ECL if there was an order by the court.

Amjad Pervez presented power of attorney on behalf of Nawaz Sharif as the petition was initially filed by PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif, the brother of Nawaz Sharif.

The counsel argued that the condition of furnishing a Rs 07 billion bond to exclude the name of the petitioner from the ECL was not based on any provision of the law.

He said the government's condition had no legal standing since the petitioner had been granted bail by the LHC in the Chaudhry Sugar Mills case and his sentence in the Al-Azizia reference was suspended by the Islamabad High Court.

When asked as if the amount of indemnity bond sought by the government was equivalent to the fine imposed on the petitioner in the Al-Azizia reference, the counsel replied in the affirmative.

The bench observed that the IHC seems to have suspended the sentence of the petitioner and not the fine.

The counsel said the courts were there to take action if the petitioner violated their orders. The government had no role in the whole matter, he added.

He said that a medical board formed by the Punjab government recommended treatment abroad for the petitioner in light of his health condition.

In response to a court's query, he said the government's condition was against the petitioner's fundamental right of free movement enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution.

Additional Attorney General initially challenged the competency of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He said the petition should have been filed before the IHC. The petitioner's counsel, however, said the LHC could hear the petition since the NAB was a federal institution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019