Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government seems to be in a politically awkward position after Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo and former prime minister, slammed the military establishing for engineering political process and installing ‘an inexperienced man’ as the PM. Analysts and citizens are now questioning; if Nawaz was not in a critical condition why did the government allow him to leave for London? To avoid any further political backlash, the premier wants Nawaz to be back sooner or later.
According to a report published in daily Dawn, Pakistan’s respected English language newspaper, PM Khan asked PTI leaders to foil all moves of the opposition aimed at destabilizing the government and maligning the army, and devise a legal strategy to bring back Nawaz Sharif from the United Kingdom.
Read More: Toshakhana case: Will Nawaz Sharif be arrested?
On the other hand, a report published in The News claims that the UK has refused to help the Pakistani government to execute Nawaz Sharif’s arrest warrants. The report also claims that Pakistani diplomats also asked the British government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to help execute the arrest warrants but the British government plainly refused, informing Pakistan officials that the UK govt will not interfere in the country’s internal political matters.
Nawaz left for London: Who allowed him?
It is important to note that the federal cabinet granted in-principle “conditional” approval to remove Nawaz’s name from the ECL. The government had asked the Sharif family to pay Rs.7 billion as surety bonds — equivalent to the fines imposed on him by an accountability court in two corruption cases Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Avenfield properties — in which he was convicted.
The PML-N leadership rejected the offer. While addressing a press conference after a consultation meeting of senior party leaders in Lahore, Shehbaz Sharif said that the incumbent government of PTI wanted to take ransom from the Sharif family in the name of an indemnity bond.
The Lahore High Court on Saturday (usually an off day) allowed former premier Nawaz Sharif to travel abroad for four weeks for medical treatment, saying the duration could be extended based on medical reports.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi and Justice Sardar Ahmad Naeem, started hearing the petition at 11 am and after multiple breaks and back and forth, delivered the verdict close to 6 pm.
Read More: Fawad Ch calls for probe into Nawaz Sharif medical test reports
In the court-approved undertaking, Nawaz assured that he would return “within four weeks” ─ a time frame that was missing in the initial handwritten undertaking.
Nawaz’s departure damaged PTI’s narrative?
Federal Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry has said that contact with the British government for Nawaz Sharif’s return and inquiry of medical reports are the right decisions. In his tweet, Fawad Chaudhry said that Nawaz Sharif’s departure to London has severely damaged PTI’s narrative and the process of accountability. Analysts are mulling over an intriguing question; is PTI serious to bring Nawaz Sharif back to Pakistan?
نواز شریف کی واپسی کیلئے برطانوی حکومت سے رابطہ اور میڈیکل رپورٹس کی انکوائری درست فیصلے ہیں، تحریک انصاف کے بیانئے اور احتساب کے عمل کو نواز شریف کی لندن روانگی نے شدید دھچکہ دیا ، جعلی رپورٹس کی تیاری میں جن لوگوں کا کردار ہے ان کو نشان عبرت بنانا چاہئے
— Ch Fawad Hussain (@fawadchaudhry) August 22, 2020
The minister stressed that those who were involved in preparing fake medical reports of Nawaz Sharif should be given exemplary punishments.
Nawaz went to London after signing a deal?
There is a growing perception that Nawaz Sharif went to London after signing a deal with the establishment. Those who suspect a deal point towards the past. If the history of Pakistan is any witness to help then it may be true. No politically powerful person in Pakistan’s history has ever been punished in a court of law; convictions even if obtained in lower courts are almost always overturned by superior courts. The system simply does not have the will to punish powerful people- they argue.