Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday filed three separate review petitions in the Supreme Court challenging his disqualification by a five-member bench on July 28.

His lawyer Khawaja Haris Ahmad filed review petitions in the apex court through Advocate-On-Record Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah. Khawaja Haris prayed the court to accept petitions and the final order passed by the court in Panama Papers case should be recalled and the Constitutional Petition No. 29 of 2016 be dismissed.

He stated: “The Final Order of the judgment suffer from errors floating on the surface of the record, besides being per incuriam, and are therefore, liable to be reviewed. The petitioners reserve the right to urge further grounds at the time of hearing of the review petition.”

Khawaja Haris also submitted relevant documents about the UAE Iqama of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. He argued that the July 28 decision should have been given by a three-member bench since Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed’s jurisdiction had expired after their dissenting judgment on April 20.

“By signing the final order of the court” on July 28, Justice Ahmed and Justice Khosa “have actually passed two judgments in the same case, which is unprecedented in judicial history,” reads the appeal petition.

“On the face of the record, there are four final judgments passed in this case; the first of these final judgments being the minority judgment dated 20.04.2017 of the two honorable members of the originally constituted 5-member bench, the second being the majority judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by the 3-member bench, the third judgment dated 29.07.2017 again passed by the 3-member bench of this court, and the fourth being the Final Order of the court dated 28.07.2017 passed by the originally constituted 5-member bench,” the appeal said.

The petition stated that without prejudice to the proceedings grounds, it is submitted that final order of the court, July 28, 2017 suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record on account of being violative, inter alia, of Article 175 (2) and (3), Articles 4, 9, 10A and 25 of the constitution, and in breach of the principle of tracheotomy of powers which forms the salient features of our constitution.”

It further stated that the request made by five-member bench to the chief justice for nominating a judge of the Supreme Court to supervise and monitor implementation of final order of the court sought to be reviewed and oversee the proceedings conducted by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Accountability Court in the matters pertaining to the investigation and trial of the references directed in final order of the court to be filed against respondents is tantamount to arrogating to the apex court the role of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and court of ultimate appeal all at once, which is repugnant to the very basis of the criminal justice system in Pakistan, and it is submitted with respect, a brazen violation of the petitioner’s and his family members’ fundamental right to fair trial as embodied in Article 10A of the Constitution, the principle of due process as guaranteed by Article 4, the fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Article 25, the fundamental right to life as secured by Article 9, the fundamental right to dignity of man as guaranteed by Article 14 and even the Constitutional norms of separation of powers as sanctified by this court innumerable judgments and as such the said request is manifestly per incuriam and needs to be expunged from the final order of the court.

The appreciation and commendations of the joint investigation team (JIT) members as much as the overseeing the investigation by the NAB is tantamount to foreclosing the right of the petitioner to challenge the quality, fairness, independence and legality of the investigation already carried out by the JIT members and any further investigation that may be conducted by the NAB, or to establish the malafides and gross illegalities committed by the JIT members, or the NAB authorities, if any, as no learned judge of the Accountability Court can dare allow the defence counsel to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witness with respect to the credibility of the investigating officers and the investigation that already bears the explicit as well as the implicit approval, appreciation and commendations of the apex court and even if so allowed to render any judgment or findings pursuant to such cross-examination that may belie or negate the observations so made by this court.