May 31, 2008	Saturday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 25, 1429

LAHORE, May 30: An election tribunal of the Lahore High Court on Friday reserved for today (Saturday) the verdict on the appeals against acceptance of nomination papers of PML-N patron Nawaz Sharif and president Shahbaz Sharif. PML-Q candidate Muhammad Nasir Raja and another candidate Shahid Orakzai have challenged the candidature of Mr Nawaz from NA-52 (Rawalpindi), while Noor Elahi and Khurram Shah from NA-123 have sought his disqualification.

The tribunal consisting of Justice Mohammad Akram Qureshi and Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim also heard other appeals against Mr Shahbaz’s candidature. Shahbaz is contesting the by-poll from at least five constituencies, including PP-10 and PP-154.

Mr Nawaz had withdrawn his nomination papers from NA-52, causing a tribunal to split while handing down a verdict on an appeal against his candidature. The senior member of the tribunal, Justice Mian Najamuz Zaman had rejected the appeal, while Justice Shamim had declared Mr Nawaz ineligible after accepting the appeal.

Later, the Election Commission of Pakistan sent the appeal to the tribunal consisting of Justice Qureshi and Justice Nasim.

Justice Qureshi repeatedly knocked the desk with his pencil and kept asking the crowd not to make noise. Lawyers, members of the group called the Concerned Citizens of Pakistan and PML-N workers filled the courtroom.

Representing the appellants, Qazi Mohiuddin and others said Mr Nawaz stood disqualified for life because of numerous reasons. “He did not make an appeal after rejection of his nomination papers in the Feb 18 election, besides defaulting on loans of several banks,” Mohiuddin said.

He said Mr Nawaz gave the Ittefaq Foundry for auction to retire loans, but later had several petitions filed against its auction by other directors of the foundry. He said it was wrong to assume that Mr Nawaz’s conviction ended with the presidential pardon at the time of his exile.

Justice Nasim asked the counsel to explain the effect of Article 45 of the Constitution — under which the president has the power to pardon a convict — because it was pivotal to the case.

The appellants’ counsel said the executive order of the president may end the sentence, but it could not do away with the conviction resulting from a judicial order. He said Mr Nawaz was disqualified from holding any office after his conviction in a corruption reference and a plane-hijacking case. He said Mr Nawaz withdrew his papers for NA-52 “in a clandestine manner” to save his candidature. On this, Ashtar Ausaf, counsel for Mr Nawaz, who said he was just assisting the court and not representing his client, objected to the use of word clandestine. Justice Qureshi asked him not to interfere in the proceedings.

The appellants’ counsel said Mr Nawaz fell out of the definition of an ‘Ameen’ because first he hid an agreement he had at the time of his exile and later he violated it by returning home sooner than the agreed 10 years.

Appellant Shahid Orakzai said Mr Shahbaz was ineligible to contest the election because he was involved in an attack on the Supreme Court. He said it was on the record that those who attacked the Supreme Court were fed and given lodging at the Punjab House on the orders of Mr Shahbaz.

Identifying himself as counsel for the civil society, Akram Sheikh said once a convict is pardoned under Article 45, he stands exonerated from all charges. He claimed the order concerning formation of the tribunal had the signatures of President Pervez Musharraf. He said the tribunal could not hold proceedings on the appeals because the president had encroached upon the powers of the election commission to form tribunals.

In a handout released late night, the LHC registrar said: “Under the law, only the election commission forms the election tribunals.”

Representing the federal government, the deputy attorney general said he could not shed much light on the presidential pardon because the official concerned did not provide him a copy of the agreement under which the Sharifs left the country.

The accused benefit in a case where doubts lurk, the Punjab advocate general said.