IHC summons Sharif’s medical reports

During the hearing of Nawaz Sharif’s petition seeking the suspension of his sentence in the Al-Azizia corruption reference on medical grounds, Sharif’s counsel, Khawaja Harris, informed the court that his client’s family was worried about Sharif’s health. (REUTERS)
  • Sharif seeks suspension of sentence in Al-Azizia case on medical grounds
  • The ex-PM is currently lodged in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail on graft charges

ISLAMABAD: A two-member bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), on Monday, summoned former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s medical reports.
During the hearing of Nawaz Sharif’s petition seeking the suspension of his sentence in the Al-Azizia corruption reference on medical grounds, Sharif’s counsel, Khawaja Harris, informed the court that his client’s family was worried about Sharif’s health. 
Harris appealed to the court to summon the reports of the medical board, complaining that test reports of the former prime minister had not been provided.
The plea, in which the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the accountability court and the superintendent of Kot Lakhpat jail are respondents, was filed in the IHC on Saturday.
Sharif, in his petition, pleaded the court to grant him bail on medical grounds. “The sentence in Al-Azizia reference should be suspended and Sharif should be granted bail on medical grounds against surety bond,” the petition read. A medical report dated January 17 was also submitted alongside.
The three-time prime minister is currently lodged in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail on graft charges. 
On Januar 22, he was rushed to the Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) by jail authorities where he was examined by a team of doctors.
“Mian Nawaz Sharif was brought to the hospital by jail authorities. He was examined by a team of doctors and the reports have been handed over to officials,” Dr. Ameer Qureshi, Medical Superintendent, PIC, told Arab News.
Sharif has already challenged the Accountability Court-II decision in the IHC, on the grounds that the accountability court’s verdict was based on incorrect interpretation of law, and that the judge had “betrayed his predisposition and exceeded his position as a trial judge” during the case hearing. 
The court has been adjourned until February 18.