AGL40.01▼ -0.01 (0.00%)AIRLINK187.98▲ 9.91 (0.06%)BOP10.12▲ 0.16 (0.02%)CNERGY7.11▲ 0.17 (0.02%)DCL10.15▲ 0.06 (0.01%)DFML41.57▲ 0 (0.00%)DGKC107.91▲ 1.02 (0.01%)FCCL39▼ -0.03 (0.00%)FFBL82.02▲ 0.13 (0.00%)FFL14.9▲ 1.2 (0.09%)HUBC119.46▲ 0.21 (0.00%)HUMNL14.05▲ 0.05 (0.00%)KEL6.4▲ 0.49 (0.08%)KOSM8.07▲ 0.01 (0.00%)MLCF49.47▲ 1.37 (0.03%)NBP73.66▲ 0.83 (0.01%)OGDC204.85▲ 11.09 (0.06%)PAEL33.56▲ 1.41 (0.04%)PIBTL8.07▲ 0.05 (0.01%)PPL185.41▲ 11.34 (0.07%)PRL33.61▲ 1.01 (0.03%)PTC27.39▲ 2.12 (0.08%)SEARL119.82▼ -5.14 (-0.04%)TELE9.69▲ 0.27 (0.03%)TOMCL35.3▼ -0.09 (0.00%)TPLP12.25▲ 0.63 (0.05%)TREET20.26▲ 1.84 (0.10%)TRG60.78▲ 0.29 (0.00%)UNITY37.99▼ -0.22 (-0.01%)WTL1.65▼ -0.01 (-0.01%)

LHC expresses anger on ‘baseless’ case against Nawaz

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Lahore High Court on Thursday expressed anger on a petition filed against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for reportedly attending a meeting of the Punjab cabinet recently.

Advocate Nadeem Sarwar moved the LHC for restraint orders against PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif for attending cabinet meeting. The petitioner submitted that Nawaz Sharif was neither a minister nor a chief minister, or hold any administrative position. However, he presided over an administrative level meeting which he cannot.

Justice Muzamil Shabbir Akhtar asked the advocate whether Nawaz Sharif was giving instructions in his own name during the meeting. Was he issuing orders with his signature?

Advocate Nadeem could not answer the questions. He, however, said that a press release mentioned him ordering distribution of electric bikes, running underground train.

The judge asked him whether the press release mentioned that Nawaz Sharif gave instruction during a cabinet meeting.

Advocate Nadeem presented a photograph of Nawaz Sharif showing him attending a meeting, on which the Justice Akhtar asked him is it a cabinet meeting. He angrily remarked that the lawyer has filed the petition on baseless assumptions.

Justice Akhtar observed that the petition was based on Article 129. How can you prove that it was a cabinet meeting, he questioned the lawyer.

Related Posts

Get Alerts