ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court expressed its willingness on Monday to consider former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the plane hijacking case and asked the state to respond how to deal with the delay of over eight years in filing the challenge.

A five-judge bench, which took up a set of identical review petitions moved by the federal government and the Sharif brothers against their electoral ineligibility, first held in order Mr Sharif’s appeal in the plane hijacking case, warranting court’s consideration.

The bench comprises Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.

The Supreme Court office had raised objections, requiring Mr Sharif to first surrender before the court and then file the petition against his conviction in the plane case.

Being the aggrieved party Mr Sharif moved an appeal against the objections which the court heard at the outset and set the office order aside.

Former advocate general of Punjab Khawaja Mohammad Haris, the counsel for Mr Sharif, contended that the requirement of surrendering before the court was irrelevant, especially after the presidential pardon under Article 45 of the Constitution and when the petitioner was no longer undergoing the sentence.

‘The contention raised by the counsel is sustained and the office order of raising objections is overruled,’ Justice Jillani held.

On Oct 10, 2000, the Sindh High Court had upheld the life sentence awarded to Nawaz Sharif by an anti-terrorism court by turning down a state appeal demanding death sentence for allegedly hijacking a plane carrying former army chief Gen Pervez Musharraf and 198 other passengers.

Mr Sharif did not file an appeal against the decision at that time, saying the judiciary was not independent because the judges had taken oath under the Provisional Constitution Order.

Later, Mr Sharif went to Saudi Arabia, along with his family, on exile after striking a deal with the Musharraf government. 

Mr Sharif requested the court to set aside the SHC verdict of upholding his conviction by the anti-terrorism court.

A similar appeal is pending before a Rawalpindi bench of the LHC against the verdict of an accountability court awarding 14 years’ imprisonment to Mr Sharif in the July 2000 helicopter case.

Khawaja Haris argued that when Mr Sharif was leaving for Jeddah, the terms of exile was not communicated to him in writing by the federal government, although he was told that the entire sentence had been remitted by the president.

He said Mr Sharif had tried twice to return to the country, but despite court’s intervention he was not allowed.

‘Now he (Mr Sharif) has moved the petition on the belief that although the pardon has washed away his conviction yet he wants to remove the stigma and the slur he has been carrying on his character.’

The counsel contended that Mr Sharif being the then prime minister and holding the additional portfolio of defence had the authority to regulate the flight of any aircraft in emergency or for public safety.

He argued that the findings of two of the three judges on the SHC bench were wrong because the statement of prosecution’s main approver Hameedullah Chaudhry had not been corroborated by the six witnesses who were later acquitted.

‘We have considered the submissions made by the counsel and prima facie the arguments raised need consideration. Let notice be issued to the state subject to the question of time limitation,’ the bench ordered while adjourning the matter for next week.

The bench also expressed displeasure over Deputy Attorney General Agha Tariq Mehmood’s half-hearted attempt to deal with the review petition pertaining to Mr Sharif’s disqualification.

The DAG who appeared to be unprepared requested the court to adjourn the matter.