HYDERABAD: A two-member election tribunal on Saturday issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan Peoples Party candidate Murad Ali Shah and others on an election appeal challenging the acceptance of Mr Shah’s nomination papers for a by-election on a provincial assembly seat (PS-73) in Jamshoro.

The tribunal comprising Justices Abdul Rasool Memon and Salahuddin Panwhar of the Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit bench also issued a notice to the deputy attorney general for Nov 10.

Roshan Ali Buriro of the Sindh Untied Party, who is also a candidate in the by-election, filed the appeal in which he stated that Mr Shah’s candidature was accepted in contravention of law and procedure through mala fide intentions by the respondent returning officer (RO) in spite of the fact that Mr Shah stood disqualified as per judicial findings against him under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

He said that Mr Shah contested the 2008 general elections after falsely deposing in his candidature that he fulfilled qualifications of Article 62 of the Constitution and was not disqualified specified under Article 63 or any other law for being elected as a member of the national or provincial assembly.

Deposition was made under oath and as per his own subsequent admission that he was a dual national at that time with Canadian citizenship in addition to Pakistan’s thereby rendered him disqualified under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution from running for national or provincial assembly seat, he added.

He said that after false claims of Mr Shah and other parliamentarians the apex court directed the Election Commission of Pakistan on Sept 20, 2012 to determine the dual nationality of parliamentarians and obtain a fresh declaration from them that they were not disqualified under Article 63(1)(c). To avoid false declaration and disqualification, Mr Shah resigned from the assembly seat, PS-73, on Nov 30, 2012, he said.

Mr Buriro maintained that Mr Shah had then renounced his Canadian citizenship through an application in which he stated that “to contest elections in Pakistan as dual nationals cannot contest elections”. This statement was made whilst he was member of the Sindh Assembly, which itself was proof that he had knowingly lied upon oath at the time of declarations in the 2008 polls, he said.

He added that the respondent then proceeded to contest the by-elections on the same seat (PS-73) he had vacated and again submitted nomination forms, deposing falsely upon oath that he was not disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution though he was a Canadian citizen at that time while his application to renounce his citizenship was pending decision.

He said that he had lied on oath while filing candidature in the 2008 election and hence stood disqualified under Article 62 for membership of a national or provincial assembly. He could no longer be considered a person who is qualified under Article 62 of ‘being sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen’.

He informed the tribunal that he had raised objections over acceptance of Mr Shah’s nomination form for the by-poll on the same seat held on Feb 18, 2013. The RO accepted his form and he approached the SHC’s appellate tribunal which ordered Mr Shah to file a fresh declaration on oath about his dual nationality. The respondent falsely stated in an affidavit again on Jan 31, 2013 that he was not a dual nationality holder and on the basis of it he was allowed to contest the polls.

He said that Mr Shah also falsely deposed in an affidavit submitted on March 29, 2013 for contesting the May 11, 2013 general elections from the same seat that he was qualified under Article 62 and not disqualified under Article 63.

The appellant said he again challenged Mr Shah’s candidature before the RO, who rejected his nomination papers. Mr Shah had filed an appeal before the election tribunal, which also rejected his appeal. Then he filed a petition before a full bench of the SHC, which on April 18, 2013 set aside the orders of the RO and the tribunal.

Mr Buriro said that he had filed an appeal before the apex court whose full bench on May 2, 2013 had set aside the SHC’s full bench order.

He said that he had also filed objections against Mr Shah’s nomination form for the upcoming by-election on PS-73 before the RO during the scrutiny of nomination papers, which were not decided. Subsequently, he came to know that Mr Shah’s form was accepted the day he filed the objections.

He asked the tribunal to set aside the Nov 5 order of the RO and reject Mr Shah’s nomination form for not fulfilling the criteria of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, November 9th, 2014

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.