ISLAMABAD: Former Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has commented on the recent Supreme Court ruling which invalidated the Review of Orders and Judgments Act. He stated that this ruling will not impact Nawaz Sharif’s legal case.
In a conversation with a private television channel, Azam Nazir Tarar emphasized that there is a procedural framework within the constitution for the functioning of institutions. He highlighted the court’s role in adjudicating cases and delivering justice, noting that the court’s authority is subject to parliamentary oversight. He expressed concern over the intervention of the bar, stating that such interventions could potentially strengthen institutions rather than weaken them.
Tarar noted that there is a perception that the absence of parliamentary involvement was exploited in this situation. He mentioned that while the demand for the annulled law came from Bar Councils and Bar Associations, he found it perplexing to entrust a doctor, who is considered ineffective, with performing another surgery. He pointed out that the constitution permits individuals to engage a lawyer of their choice.
Addressing concerns about Nawaz Sharif’s case, the leader of the League asserted that this Supreme Court decision would not impact the former Prime Minister’s situation. He clarified that Parliament had already passed a law stipulating a maximum 5-year disqualification period for offenses under Section 184/3. This amendment, he explained, limits disqualification to five years. Tarar highlighted that political participation is a fundamental right and, following the legislation, individuals are eligible for politics after a 5-year disqualification period, even in cases involving murder or rape convictions.
Tarar further explained that it is possible to file a review application against the Supreme Court’s decision within a 20-day timeframe. He suggested that decisions regarding such applications would be made later. He concluded by suggesting that the timing of the decision was strategic, taking advantage of the parliamentary absence to ensure that the ruling could not be rectified through legislative action.