LAHORE: Erstwhile prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and journalist Cyril Almeida on Monday appeared before the Lahore High Court (LHC) in a treason case, whereas ousted premier Nawaz Sharif did not show up during the hearing.

A three-judge bench of the LHC, headed by Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, took up a petition seeking registration of a high treason case against two former premiers – Nawaz Sharif and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi – and journalist Cyril Almeida.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Naqvi asked why did Nawaz Sharif not appear before the court? “Law is equal for everyone, if Nawaz Sharif intended to not attend the hearing then he should have submitted his exemption plea,” the Justice remarked.

As the hearing went underway, Cyril Almedia submitted his response before the bench while the legal counsel of Abbasi was instructed to present his client’s rejoinder.

Adjourning the case hearing until November 12, the LHC bench directed all three respondents in high treason case to ensure their presence in the next hearing.

The petition

Petitioner Amina Malik through her counsel Azhar Siddique had moved the petition, accusing Mr Sharif of trying to defame state institutions and Mr Abbasi of not honouring his oath of office by disclosing to Nawaz the details of a National Security Council (NSC) meeting.

Earlier this year, deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif sparked a controversy when he made a statement about the Mumbai attacks in an interview to Cyril Almeida.

The petitioner approached the LHC seeking registration of a treason case against Nawaz Sharif, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and the journalist for trying to defame state institutions.

She contended Sharif attempted to discredit state institutions while issuing remarks about the Mumbai attacks during an interview to English daily’s reporter Cyril Almeida.

The petitioner stated that after a National Security Council meeting held to discuss the controversial statement, Abbasi met the PML-N supreme leader and disclosed the minutes of the meeting to him which was a clear violation of his oath of office.

Comments

comments