ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday likened the Supreme Court’s (SC) verdict on Punjab elections to the ‘judicial murder’ of late prime minister Zulfikar Ali (ZA) Bhutto, ARY News reported.
Addressing the National Assembly floor, PM Shehbaz referred to the ‘judicial murder’ of late prime minister Zulfikar Ali (ZA) Bhutto and said his ‘murder’ took place on April 4, 1979, and on the same date today, the unfortunate episode was repeated with a decision of the Supreme Court (SC) in the polls delay case.
The prime minister equating the two decisions said today, a murder of justice took place which was highly regrettable.
He said in the cabinet’s meeting, they had demanded that a reference over the judicial murder of the late prime minister, which had been pending for the last 12 years, should be taken up and decided by the full court.
He said the world knew that ZAB’s case was a ‘judicial murder’. One of the former judges, who had decided the case, had accepted it in his memories, he added.
The prime minister also lauded late ZAB and said he was among the founders of the 1973 Constitution and his historic contribution would always be remembered.
SC verdict
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday declared the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) March 22 order on Punjab elections null and void.
A three-member bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — announced the reserved verdict on the PTI’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s order postponing the elections in Punjab and KP.
The Supreme Court declared the ECP’s order postponing the provincial assembly elections until October 8 as “unconstitutional” and ordered the government to release Rs21 billion funds for elections in Punjab by April 10.
The top court directed to conduct Punjab polls on May 14. The SC further directed the caretaker government in Punjab to assist the commission. “The court will issue an appropriate order in case of non-provision of funds,” the verdict read.
Leave a Comment