ISLAMABAD – Senior Supreme Court judge and member of the three judge special bench constituted for implementation of Panama verdict, Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked on Friday that no judge had ever called prime minister Nawaz Sharif ‘liar’.
Hearing the case regarding the implementation of Panama verdict, justice Ejaz said that a political leader quoted his note from the Panama judgment and inferred that he had called prime minister Nawaz Sharif a ‘liar’ which was incorrect.
He further stated that the court would proceed against those who keep on misinterpreting the Panama judgment. Justice Ejaz remarked that those who claim to be leaders should avoid irresponsible statements.
In his remarks, justice Ejaz categorically clarified that the apex court was not there to pass popular judgments.
‘The three member bench is to look into the case irrespective of political leaders and parties concerned’ said Justice Ejaz Afzal and added that the Supreme Court would form the JIT today (Friday).
Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that he did not watch television and so the statements and analysis did not impact the three-member bench.
He was also irritated regarding the names of representatives from six departments for JIT that were leaked to media outlets and held heads of departments responsible for that.
It bears mentioning that Justice Ejaz did not refer to any individual political leader regarding ‘misinterpreting’ the judgment but it is highly likely that he may have made a veiled reference to PTI chief Imran Khan, who in a tweet termed Nawaz Sharif ‘liar’ citing the rejection of Qatari letter.
Rejection of Qatari letter by all 5 SC judges means Nawaz Sharif lied before the court . A liar cannot be our PM. https://t.co/CaK4Mp7ZNs
— Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) April 29, 2017
During today’s hearing, Justice Ejaz expressed his displeasure over the speculations and assumptions regarding the Panama judgment, and justice Azmat Saeed also showed his resentment regarding the interpretations on social media.
In his remarks, justice Azmat Saeed expressed that the court knew how to handle social and other forms of media.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing.