ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Usman Dar looks heavenwards in gratitude after the Islamabad High Court’s announcement of the reserved verdict in the disqualification case of Foreign Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif.—Online
Mr Asif had the distinction of being elected to the National Assembly in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2008.
Mr Asif admitted that he worked for the UAE-based International Mechanical and Electrical Company (IMEC) as legal adviser for a basic salary of 9,000 dirhams per month. The contract was extended twice and his monthly salary also increased to 50,000 dirhams.
In his petition, Usman Dar contended that Mr Asif had deliberately concealed material facts in his statement of assets and liabilities and had not declared his income which was derived as ‘salary’ from full-time employment with the company since 2011, the source of business capital applied for to set up a restaurant in Abu Dhabi, as well as the account maintained with the Bank of Abu Dhabi which was sufficient for a declaration in the context of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, read with the relevant provisions of the Act of 1976 — the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent precedent.
Since he was holding the portfolios of defence and finance minister, the conflict of interest was obvious and, therefore, this alone was sufficient to declare Mr Asif disqualified, the petitioner argued.
On the other hand, the counsel for Khawaja Asif argued that the onus was on the petitioner to establish that his client was performing his duty in the UAE.
He said the relationship between Mr Asif and the IMEC was flexible and no reliable evidence had been produced by the petitioner to show that Mr Asif was engaged in working on a full-time basis in the UAE. The declaration regarding occupation did not attract Section 12(2)(f) of the Act of 1976 which led to disqualification, he added.
The counsel pleaded before the high court that since an identical matter related to disqualification of Sheikh Rashid Ahmed was pending before the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to keep this matter till the Supreme Court announced its judgement in the case.
Regarding non-disclosure of occupation, the IHC bench observed that the Supreme Court in recent judgements appeared to have elaborated the standard of the test required to be applied while examining a non-disclosure in the context of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
The IHC verdict then discussed in detail the judgements passed in the cases of Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi versus Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif; Muhammad Hanif Abbasi versus Imran Khan Niazi; Mohammad Hanif Abbasi versus Jahangir Khan Tareen, etc.
It said the question regarding the test to be applied came up for consideration before a larger bench of the Supreme Court and it was observed and held in the case titled “Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi” [PLD 2018 SC 1] as follows: “The argument that even if it is assumed that un-withdrawn salary constitutes an asset, omission to disclose it involving a violation of Sections 12 and 13 of the Representation of Peoples Act calls for the rejection of nomination papers or at its worst, removal of the petitioner from the public office.
“In any form of democratic system the most important stakeholders are the constituents. It is the voter who has to make a choice and it is crucial for this purpose that every candidate makes a true and honest declaration, particularly when any information mentioned in the nomination paper has been challenged.”
The court order stated: “The Respondent [Khawaja Asif] has had the privilege of being declared as a returned candidate from the constituency of NA-110 in the general elections which were held in 1993, 1997, 2002, 2008 and lastly in 2013. In his column relating to qualifications, the Respondent has declared that he holds the degree of bachelor of law. He was definitely a seasoned and accomplished politician and, by no stretch of the imagination, a ‘novice’ in the field of politics. He was also a law graduate and, therefore, fully understood the implications of making a false or evasive declaration.”
The high court rejected the arguments that Mr Asif had attached copies of passport and iqama with the nomination papers and did not conceal any information from the ECP. The court observed that iqama was merely a residence visa issued by the immigration officials. In the instant case, it added, the non-disclosure was that of the employment as an occupation…these ought to have been truly declared in the nomination paper or, at best, when the statement regarding foreign remittances and details thereof were challenged.
The verdict noted that tax returns filed in the relevant tax years and placed before the bench confirmed that the provisions of relevant laws were not complied with. In the case at hand, the ground of disqualification had a nexus with the nomination paper and the arguments of the counsel for Khawaja Asif were without force, the verdict concluded.
Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2018