ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz stalwart Khawaja Mohammad Asif on Wednesday challenged in the Supreme Court his disqualification by the Islamabad High Court, regretting that the April 26 IHC decision was an exception taken against an elected parliamentarian.

“The high court exercised its jurisdiction despite the fact that no allegation of corruption, fraud, embezzlement, accumulation of wealth, money laundering, misappropriation of public property or public funds or abuse of public authority for private gain was ever levelled against Khawaja Asif,” argued a petition moved by senior counsel Muneer A. Malik and Zahid F. Ebrahim.

It requested the apex court to overturn the IHC verdict that disqualified the former foreign minister for not disclosing his salary drawn from a UAE company.

Citing the 2017 Mohammad Hanif Abbasi case against Imran Khan, the petition pointed out that the Supreme Court had meticulously laid down a benchmark for the exercise of quo warranto jurisdiction by holding that the power of quo warranto in relation to parliamentarians could only be exercised validly by courts if the disqualification attributed to them had direct and close nexus to corruption.

Terms IHC verdict an exception taken against elected parliamentarian

“But the words corrupt, corruption or corrupt practices do not even find mention in the entire memo of the petition moved by Mohammad Usman Dar before the IHC. Thus there is no justification for the high court to exercise quo warranto jurisdiction on the plea of a person who had come before it allegedly with soiled and unclean hands suppressing material information,” it contended.

In the petition, Mr Asif argued that an inadvertent omission to disclose in his nomination papers, a bank account which represented less than 0.5 per cent of his total assets, particularly when the account lay dormant though it was disclosed in the annual statement of assets and liabilities filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan before the writ was instituted, could not be treated as willful and dishonest concealment.

He said his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections had been challenged by one of his rival candidates, Arshad Mahmood Baggu, while his success had been challenged by Usman Dar in the Election Tribunal which was later dismissed.

The petition said Mr Dar’s appeal met the same fate before the Supreme Court which even rejected his review petition, but these facts were suppressed before the high court by Mr Dar who had earlier even filed complaints in the National Accountability Bureau.

Mr Asif pointed out that the disputed fact going to the heart of the question was whether the salary of 9,000 dirham was included in the foreign remittance of Rs6.8 million recorded in his nomination form which should have been addressed by the high court with a full trial and his right to lead evidence.

The petition argued that the high court was not justified in concluding a lack of honesty in relation to non-disclosure of the dormant bank account without giving any reasons or any evidence establishing such dishonesty.

The salary earned abroad with other foreign proceeds resulting from a sale of business did not necessarily establish dishonesty in concealing foreign salary, the petition argued, adding that the high court had failed to appreciate the provisions of UAE Federal Labour Law 8 of 1980 which never barred the employer and the employee from subsequently agreeing to more favourable terms for the benefit of the employee as compared to those set out in the employment contract.

It contended that the high court had erred in holding that disclosure would have led to giving up iqama (work permit) and the hefty salary paid by the UAE company for some advice sought telephonically by a foreign employer from the prospective defence and then foreign minister of Pakistan when the monthly salary under the first employment contract was clearly listed in Mr Asif’s tax returns filed along with the nomination papers.

The petition said iqama itself with the name of the employer was also clearly mentioned in the documents in support of the nomination forms, adding that he was condemned on the basis of surmises and presumptions.

Moreover, it said, the high court had erred in concluding that the lack of honesty was established by not disclosing the employment as an occupation and the salary received per month when the same was clearly reflected in his nomination form.

Published in Dawn, May 3rd, 2018