ISLAMABAD, Oct 17: The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday its detailed judgment in the exile case of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif.
The court elaborated the points in its August 23 short order of the case and said that the former prime minister’s release from the prison and his journey to Saudi Arabia after getting a pardon due to an undertaking could not be described as ‘forced exile’.
It, however, held that the Sharif brothers could return as “no restraint can be placed on a Pakistani citizen to return to his country and the undertaking given by them had no constitutional legitimacy as such the petitioners cannot be prohibited from coming to Pakistan”.
The government had on Sept 10 managed to send Mr Sharif back to exile in Saudi Arabia, hours after he had arrived in Islamabad from London.
The seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in the detailed judgment laid emphasis on the fundamental rights of a citizen as enshrined in the Constitution and declared that “Sharif brothers cannot be denied or infringed upon or curtailed on the ground of laches”.
However, the judgment gave detailed observations on the circumstances in which Nawaz Sharif and others gave an undertaking, resulting in remission/pardon in their jail term and subsequent journey to Saudi Arabia. The order said: “In view of the chequered history of the case, the undertaking furnished by the petitioners cannot be ignored altogether on the basis whereof they had proceeded abroad.”
It said: “Had this undertaking not been in field, the position would have been different and sentence awarded in various cases would remain intact.”
The judgment said that in such view of the matter, the journey to Saudi Arabia could not be termed as ‘forced exile’. It said the move was “never challenged for a couple of years as the petitioners were aware of the undertaking which culminated in their release from jail”.
The judgment said: “Whatever terminology, i.e., deal, negotiation, mediation, third-party intervention, undertaking or agreement may be used, but there is no denying the fact that the petitioners had proceeded abroad at their own.”
The court order said that perhaps the move was under compelling circumstances, “but they (petitioners) were fully aware of it and by no stretch of imagination it could be termed as forced exile”.
“In fact, the judgment refers to the Sharifs’ decision to travel to Saudi Arabia as ‘voluntarily shifting’ and not forced exile,” it said.
“The undertaking signed by the petitioners is demonstrative of the fact that they have approved the assistance of a ‘gentleman’ to negotiate or mediate on their behalf for their release from incarceration and expressed their satisfaction on the results of the negotiation to which they agreed then which kind of ‘forced exile’ it was?” the bench asked.
