LAHORE, Sept 27: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday dismissed all the six petitions of PML-N leaders Shahbaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz for inclusion of their names in the final lists of candidates, upholding the election tribunal’s decision disqualifying them from elections.

The full bench of LHC comprising Justice Javed Butar, Justice Ejaz Chaudhry and Justice Jamshed Ali observed that they had examined the written orders of the election tribunal disqualifying the petitioners. There was nothing on record to show that the detailed judgment had been issued after the expiry of tribunal’s life-span.

A detailed judgment would be issued later.

After pronouncement of the short order, the counsel for the petitioners, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, said he would challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court as soon as he got a copy of the detailed judgment.

The petitioners had nominated the returning officers for NA-119, NA-122, PP-141 and PP-142, all candidates from these four constituencies of Lahore, the election tribunal and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) as respondents.

The petitioners submitted that orders of the returning officers concerned clearing both Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom for elections, were restored when the election tribunal failed to sign its disqualification order within its life span. It was pleaded that the nomination papers and the authority letters appended with those papers had been signed by the petitioners. Lastly, Mr Shahbaz had refuted the tribunal’s declaration that he was a wilful defaulter.

When the full bench delivered the verbal order, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Khwaja Saeeduz Zafar had completed his arguments. He submitted that it would be presumed that the tribunal’s verdict had been written and signed the day it was announced verbally. The delay in signing the judgment was a procedural anomaly, which could not hurt a judgment’s validity, he added.

The state argued that under the Representation of People’s Act (ROPA) 1976, a candidate was supposed to say under oath that whatever he had disclosed in nomination papers was true. However, it was contended, an affidavit signed by one Dr Makhdoomi had been appended with the papers of Mr Shahbaz, saying that the latter had signed the nomination papers himself in front of the former who, in fact, was sitting in Pakistan.

It was argued that this affidavit had been prepared in Pakistan whereas Mr Shahbaz had not visited Pakistan since his departure to Saudi Arabia. The state contended that the petitioner’s wrong statement of facts had put his credibility in doubt and defeated the purpose of ROPA, which was aimed at bringing honest candidates to the fore.

The DAG said the signatures of both the petitioners on nomination papers differed markedly from those on affidavits. He acknowledged that there could be a slight difference in signatures of a person depending on his state of mind and sitting posture, which, however, could not cause such a marked difference as there was in this case.

He contended that the finding of election tribunal that signatures of the two petitioners appeared to have been forged was not open to judicial review. It was argued that the affidavit produced by Hamza Shahbaz before the tribunal saying that signatures on the nomination papers were of his father did not have any legal value since it had not been attested by any authority.

The DAG submitted that Mr Shahbaz would be considered a wilful defaulter as long as the amount owed by him was not paid off. The bench asked as to how could Mr Shahbaz be regarded as a wilful defaulter when he and Nawaz Sharif had handed over the assets of Ittefaq Brothers and Ittefaq Foundries Private Limited to the company judge concerned. The DAG replied that the matter of loan recovery was not yet over, as no final orders had been issued in this regard. Mr Shahbaz would be considered a wilful defaulter till the announcement of company judge’s final orders.

The state in its concluding arguments submitted that the delivery of ballot papers to the officials concerned had been started, and these petitions could not be allowed at this stage. The bench was requested to reject the petitions on grounds that the polls could not postponed for allowing the petitions, as such a permission would be against national interests.

To a bench query, Punjab Advocate-General Maqbool Ellahi Malik submitted that mere arrangements for retirement of liabilities did not relieve a respondent of default. Not a single penny had been given to the plaintiff bank in this case so far, he added. He further said the election tribunal’s finding that Mr Shahbaz was a wilful defaulter had obtained finality and could not be challenged.

In a short reply to state arguments, petitioners’ counsel submitted that under the law, an election tribunal was bound to deliver the verdict in an open court and within its life-span. He said variations in the signatures of Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom did not amount to forgery.