Islamabad, Feb 22 (TNS): Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was disqualified as the head of his party by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, has said that the recent decisions of the apex court are “person-specific”.
He was responding to arguments that the Elections Act 2017, which allowed Nawaz to become the Pakistan Muslim League-N president, was ‘person-specific’. Talking to the media outside the accountability court hearing corruption cases against him and his family on Thursday, Nawaz said yesterday’s decision was not an unexpected one for him. You know they first paralyzed the executive and snatched its authority, he said, adding that Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said the same in Parliament recently. Now with yesterday’s decision, they’ve done the same with Parliament,” said the three-time premier.
Narrating how his premiership was taken in the Panama Papers verdict last year and how his PML-N presidency was snatched yesterday, Nawaz said: “Now it’s just me. You can take me too by finding something in the Constitution that can take away my name, Mohammad Nawaz Sharif. He reiterated that the Elections Act 2017 is not person-specific as former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto drafted the law after which a martial law administrator struck it down. “In 2014, all the political parties were behind the making of this law. How can it be person specific,” said Nawaz, adding that the Supreme Court’s decisions, however, are Nawaz Sharif and person-specific.
Nawaz said they can use the Black’s Law Dictionary, which was used in the Panama case judgment, to find something to take away what’s left. He claimed that there is no law in Pakistan which would have declared illegal a receivable income, referring to the reasons for his disqualification last year. The reasoning of yesterday’s decision is the same as the Iqama “foreign work permit” reason,” he claimed, adding that “they want to disqualify me for life.” today, Nawaz is expected to chair a meeting at the Punjab House in Islamabad to discuss the fallout of the Supreme Court decision.
