LAHORE, June 18: A three-member bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has reserved for today (Thursday) its verdict on applications of several ‘stake-holders’, who want to become a party to the proceedings against the candidatures of PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and PML-N president and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

Justice Fazl-i-Miran Chohan, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Ahsan Bhoon on Wednesday heard arguments whether the applications to become party could be entertained. Punjab Assembly speaker, the provincial government, the PML-N Lahore chapter and Pakistan Lawyers Forum have filed the applications to defend the Sharifs’ candidature.

Representing the Punjab Assembly speaker, Advocate Akram Sheikh said a public office was a public agency for the benefit of the people. “A beneficiary has the right to come forward and say ‘please do not destroy this public office’,” he added.

He said his client, the speaker of the Punjab Assembly, has the right to defend Shahbaz Sharif, who was not only a member but also the elected leader of the house. “If anyone is not represented before the court, the court has not the power to ruin his case,” he said.

“On what basis you are saying this. We have not decided the case yet. You should go slow and restrict yourself to the subject,” observed Justice Chohan. Laughter broke out in the courtroom as soon as the counsel used a ‘catchy’ phrase to express surprise over Justice Chohan’s observation and added that he held the court in “highest esteem”.

When the bench asked Shahid Orakzai, a freelance journalist, to wait for his turn to be heard in petitions against Shahbaz Sharif, the petitioner requested the court not to club his case with other similar petitions.

“This is what the election tribunal had done. It had clubbed my case with others and treated all alike. Please do not burry me in a mass grave,” Orakzai too drew laughter while replying to the court. Justice Chohan observed: “These days everyone was buried in his own grave.”

Representing Zafar Iqbal, the proposer for Nawaz Sharif from NA-123, Advocate Iqbal Haider said his client was a concerned party and could become a party in the case. He added that after the tribunal had decided the appeals against Nawaz Sharif, the election could not be challenged.

Haider said the election started when the Election Commission of Pakistan initiated the process of submission of nomination papers and announced date for holding it. The bench asked why the proposer would like to defend the petition against Mr Sharif, who was not appearing before it.

The counsel said Mr Sharif should not be penalised for he was busy working for the independence of judiciary and the rule of law in the country. Perspiring in the overcrowded courtroom and wiping his sweat off his glasses, Haider said he did not know he would have to argue at length for having done the simple procedure of getting notice served on the respondents.

At this moment, Advocate AK Dogar, also seeking court’s permission to become a party in the petitions against Nawaz Sharif, said he felt as if he was in the House of Horrors in London. He suggested the bench to shift the proceedings to the courtroom of Chief Justice Sayed Zahid Hussain to accommodate all the lawyers sweating and standing because of lack of air-conditioning and space. The bench, however, did not accept the suggestion.

Haider said the ‘doctrine of mandate’, recognised all over the world, should be employed and the proposer be allowed to become a party to the proceedings. “Let the people decide whether or not they wanted Nawaz Sharif to represent them,” he said while referring to the polling set to take place on June 26.

The counsel said Nawaz Sharif was fighting to undo the fallout of the coup General Pervez Musharraf pulled against the judiciary on Nov 3, 2007. Justice Chohan asked the counsel to stick to the point and demonstrate how he could become a party in the petitions against Nawaz Sharif.

Appearing before the court, Dogar said he was not defending the Sharifs but wanted the court to enforce his fundamental rights. “It is a fundamental right of every citizen in a civilised society to chose someone for the collective good,” he added.He said according to the Supreme Court (SC), the rule under which he had filed the application to become a party was procedural and not substantive in nature. He added the SC in Malik Asad Ali’s case had said the rules were for regulating the proceedings alone and placed no bar on adjudication of a matter of public importance.

In Benazir Bhutto’s case, Dogar said, any citizen could approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights of a person or a group of people. During the course of proceedings, the counsel said that Justice Yaqoob had written in one of his verdicts that those who endorsed martial laws were the collaborators of the martial law. When Justice Chohan observed that they were not the collaborators, the lawyers asked them as to why they took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO).

Winding up his arguments, the counsel said political justice was a fundamental right and could be enforced like other rights.