Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced on Thursday that the government had decided to take back the curative review petition against one of the senior-most judges of Pakistan, Justice Qazi Faez Isa as it was an upshot of the former government’s vindictiveness.
Taking to Twitter, the premier said that the case was driven by malice and intended to pressurise the honourable judge under the directives of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan.
“On my direction, the government has decided to withdraw the Curative Review Petition against senior most Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Qazi Faez Isa. The Curative Review was based on ill-will & meant to harass and intimidate the honourable Judge at the behest of Imran Niazi,” PM Shehbaz Sharif tweeted.
A separate statement issued by the PM Office read that a cabinet meeting chaired by the premier had already given consent to taking back the reference. It added that Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had been directed by the PM to take back the plea.
Last year in July, the federal cabinet approved the withdrawal of the curative review petition.
After the cabinet meeting, held under the chair of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said there was no precedent for the curative review filed against Justice Isa, adding that “it was only filed to keep” the judge “under pressure”.
“Justice Isa is a reputable judge and goons like [former adviser to then prime minister Imran Khan on accountability] Shahzad Akbar treated him unfairly,” he had said.
Sanaullah told journalists, back then, that the law secretary had informed the members of the federal cabinet that no prior approval was taken before the submission of the reference.
“This ruckus was created by Shahzad Akbar and the then law minister,” he added.
Back then, the interior minister had mentioned that a sub-committee was formed to take action against all those who made “false references” against Justice Isa. He added that the sub-committee has been asked to submit a report in this regard.
It is unclear whether the sub-committee came into effect and whether a report was submitted after it was formed.
