Former prime minister, Sharif family hold law and constitution in highest esteem: Marriyum

ISLAMABAD: Minister of State for Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage Marriyum Aurangzeb Monday said that former Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif held the law and constitution in the highest esteem, which was amply demonstrated by him and his family during the hearing of their case in the apex court.

She said that the family also adopted a legal and constitutional course for filing a review petition against the decision of the Supreme Court.

In a statement issued here, the minister of state said that the members of the Sharif family enjoyed fundamental rights like all other citizens of Pakistan and the law and constitution would have to take care of their rights also.

Referring to the return of the former Prime Minister to face the cases in the Ehtesab Court, she said that her claim that the Lion would return and whole of Pakistan would witness it, had been vindicated.

Marriyum observed that the entire nation was asking the question, how come a case that commenced with the allegations of money laundering ended on the work permit (Iqama) ?

Referring to Imran Khan’s political escapades, she observed that he abused state institutions, derided them, became absconder from the courts and in the end tendered apology which he said he would never ask for. She said that Imran had done nothing during the last four years except for weakening the state institutions through his bizarre indiscretions.

The minister said that the Ehtesab Commission in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa had been locked to cover reckless corruption of the government which remained shut even today.

Marriyum said that those who cried hoarse in the Supreme Court about corruption were themselves running away from the courts.

Pointing out Imran’s confession about betting on a cricket match in his book ‘A Personal History’ to earn money to clear the losses of his brother-in-law and wiping of the debt of his party, she said that he was guilty of gambling but maintained that he only rendered advice to his brother-in-law. What an innocence, she remarked?