Published: Tue, April 17, 2018
Medicine | By Douglas Stevenson

Top court summons Nawaz, Maryam over "anti-judiciary speeches"

Top court summons Nawaz, Maryam over

During the proceedings, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) was directed to decide over petitions regarding on-airing the anti-judiciary speeches within 15 days. The bench also issued a notice to PEMRA, instructing the regulatory body to present their point of view on the matter.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice Saqib Nisar summoned a record of complaints against the speeches of PML-N leaders filed with Pemra.

Following the Panama Papers judgment which led to Nawaz Sharif's disqualification as premier, he and other PML-N leaders have drawn ire for their criticism of the judiciary.

On Monday, a larger bench of the LHC ordered Pemra to stop television channels from airing anti-judiciary speeches by Sharif, his daughter and other party leaders. "One can't, for instance, make anti-judiciary comments", he added. Drawing attention to Article 68, Justice Naqvi said it even prevented the Parliament from criticising the judiciary and its decisions.

Accountability court judge Mohammad Bashir resumed hearing of the corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in the light of the Panamagate verdict.

"This is not a minor mistake", the bench replied.

The petitioner said PEMRA did not block these hateful and ridiculing remarks passed against the judiciary.

Noting that the notice did not prove the authority failed in its duties, Justice Jahangir stressed that it was not fulfilling its responsibilities. "The judges acted as lawyers of Imran Khan and they were party against Nawaz Sharif".

The court also rejected an application filed by Advocate A K Dogar on behalf of Sharif requesting that Justice Naqvi recuse himself from the full bench.

"So the court's decision is correct, but it will still be hard to implement". The defence counsel had insisted it appeared that the bench had already made up its mind about the outcome of the case.

The petitioner further said their tirade was going unnoticed.

Like this: