Nawaz for annulling dictatorial laws in single jerk

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. (REUTERS)

ISLAMABAD: Former Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday underlined the need for annulling laws of dictatorial regimes in one go as he asserted there was space for a better accountability law.
Talking to media after appearing before the Accountability Court, Nawaz Sharif expressed that recent experiences made him believe to do away with all laws enacted during dictatorial regimes.
“We can have better laws that the present NAB law and there was an urgent need to repeal such laws that are used to victimize people.”
He said this is an apathy that people are discussing to put his name on Exit Control List (ECL). The question arises as to who was doing all this.
He said NAB was badly used against people before 2002 polls as he feared recurrence of same events. “After experiencing all this I direly feel to repeal all such laws.
Nawaz Sharif said everybody knows that he did not believe in umpire’s finger but in thumb impressions of voters on the ballot paper.
“Votes are gained with thumb impression on ballot papers and not through umpire’s finger.”
He reiterated commitment to the country and the constitution and mentioned to the game being played for the last 70 years stating that people are no more afraid of this game.
Former Prime Minister said he had consulted with Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi on appointment of Caretaker Government as he stressed that upcoming election should not be delayed even for a single day.
“Politicians should sit together for a consensus Caretaker Prime Minister and ensure that nobody should hamper the election process.
He said his proposal to sit with state institutions was for the sake of law, constitution and democracy.
“We have rendered valuable sacrifices for democracy. We had been upholding law and constitution and shall remain committed in future as well.”
Nawaz said he should not have indulged in Memogate scandal because it does not take much time here to frame cases against anybody. “Cases can be framed against anybody. But we believe in strength of vote and would not let recur the practices of the past.”