No immunity for PM under Article 66

No immunity for PM under Article 66 PTI tells SC

Islamabad: In a written reply to the Supreme Court, which concluded a Panama newspaper hearing on Thursday, chief aide Neeem Bokhari said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in accordance with Article 66 of the Constitution, I asserted that I can not claim immunity. On May 16, 2015. It is not the purpose or intent of Article 66 of the Constitution to provide sanctuary, privilege or protection to a member of Parliament in relation to explaining and explaining the members of Parliament on unwarranted statements including concealment (PTI). Imran Khan ), Said Bokhari’s refutation on page 70. This document was submitted on Thursday before Bokhari concluded a five-person Supreme Court justice led by Attorney General Asif Saeed Khosa, completing a case against the Panamanian newspaper.

The bench has reserved the court’s judgment to be ruled later. Article 66 deals with the privileges of members and guarantees freedom of speech at the floor of the house, which can not be challenged in court. In the controversy, the defendant states that if the privilege under Article 66 is extended to such a case, it will lose the entire purpose of such clarification or explanation as presented by the congressman. In such a case, the explanation and explanation would be meaningless and fantastic, and he added that the council would defeat the object which could be held accountable to Congress.

Likewise, if a statement by a clear statement is made specifically by a member of the Parliament, and the same member subsequently claims an exemption from the above statement under Article 66, that would correspond to the fraud of the Member in respect of the Parliament itself, He stressed that he violated his job.

The Advisory Committee states that before the court asks the question

The family expressly waives the immunity privilege in spite of this privilege because it does not require the constitution or immunity privilege and does not require the second appeal. In further explaining Article 66, the defendant argued that the purpose and purpose of the provision was to promote and protect the rights of members of Parliament in relation to the freedom of expression of the Chair. Privileges granted are not to be interpreted as applying to a personal matter to a member of parliament, especially when the statement has a very specific and specific personal context. When making a written speech on May 16, the prime minister argued that the Congress had not exercised its right to freedom of speech related to legislative or policy issues under consideration at the National Assembly, which required the expansion of Article 66.

The prime minister came to Parliament to clarify his name by disclosing the truth about his and his family’s allegations in the aftermath of the publication of four luxury apartments in London. Nature and context of the prime minister ‘s speech at the bottom of the parliament can not even be asserted to be subject to the provisions of Article 66 because the provisions of Article 66 can only be implemented where freedom of speech is guaranteed. Press.

The prime minister did not say that the speech was made in front of the National Assembly through the exercise of freedom of speech in relation to legislation or policy issues. Ultimate source of documents related to Nescoll Limited, Nielson Enterprises Limited, and Corporate Officer Limited, which Khan gave to Khan, referring to the credibility and value of the Panamanian papers, is that the International Consortium (ICIJ) Through groups. Source of this document is independent and distinct, and petitioner’s claims are not published by international journalists for public interest.

International Market