Nawaz Sharif,Maryam Nawaz-Capt (r) Safdar name to be put on ECL

Adjust Comment Print

During the court proceedings today, Sharif's counsel pleaded the judge to grant his client a permission to visit his ailing wife in London by exempting the three from personal appearance before the court from February 19 to March 5.

CJ Nisar and Khawaja Harris discussed the corruption references against Nawaz Sharif at courtroom.

The accountability judge then reserved a decision on the plea which was announced later today.

Meanwhile, the NAB on Wednesday moved two supplementary references in the accountability court in support of the previous cases.

On Wednesday, the NAB formally requested the Ministry of Interior to place the names of several members of Sharif family on the Exit Control List (ECL).

The request was made by the anti-graft watchdog through the letters written to the interior ministry.

Talking to media in Lahore, Fawad Chaudhary lashed out at interior minister and said that action would be taken against interior minister Ahsan Iqbal for not putting the name of Ishaq Dar on ECL.

The interior ministry is unlikely to heed to the NAB's request.

Javed Iqbal had approved the filing of supplementary references against the Sharif family.

Sources informed that eight new witnesses in each reference, as well as new evidence, including details of offshore companies of Hasan and Hussain, are part of the supplementary references.

The spokesperson of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Fawad Chaudhary praising National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for placing the names of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain retired Safdar on Exit Control List (ECL) said that it was a welcome step.

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court on July 28 had directed NAB to file references against Nawaz and his children in six weeks in the accountability court and directed the trial court to decide the references within six months.

The bureau had earlier filed a supplementary reference against the former premier and members of his family in the Avenfield properties case.

Comments