ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday disqualified Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif as member of parliament under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution for not disclosing his employment as well as the monthly salary he was receiving from a UAE-based company.
“We declare that the Respondent [Khawaja Asif] was not qualified to contest the General Election of 2013 from NA-110 as he did not fulfill the conditions described under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, read with Section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976,” read the judgment announced by a three-member bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.
“The Registrar of this Court is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the Election Commission for de-notifying the Respondent as Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. A copy is also directed to be sent to the Speaker of National Assembly of Pakistan for information,” it added.
The ECP later in the evening issued a notification denotifying Kh Asif as member of the National Assembly.
“Iqama is merely a residence visa issued by the immigration officials. In the instant case, the non-disclosure was that of the employment as an occupation and the salary per month received there under,” the judgment read, while noting reasons for the disqualification of foreign minister. “Supreme Court has not disqualified the former prime minister [Nawaz Sharif] merely for holding an ‘Iqama’ but rather his disqualification was due to non-disclosure of assets. Holding an ‘Iqama’ cannot be made the basis for attracting Article 62(1)(f).”
According to the judgement, “it was obvious from the facts and circumstances in the instant case that the Respondent (Khawaja Asif) had deliberately and wilfully not disclosed his status as an employee of the Company, nor receiving of the salary per month pursuant thereto, despite having been expressly put to challenge by other contesting candidates.”
“The validity of ‘Iqama’, working as an employee of the Company and receiving a substantial salary without being physically present, which is AED 50,000/-per month under the Third Contract executed in July 2017, were some benefits gained from non-disclosure.
Disclosure would have led to giving up the ‘Iqama’ and the hefty salary paid by the Company for some advice sought telephonically by a foreign-based employer from the prospective Defence and then Foreign Minister of Pakistan. We have deeply pondered but could not persuade ourselves that this deliberate and wilful non-disclosure was a bonafide or honest omission,” it added.
“The lack of honesty was established by not disclosing the employment as an occupation and the salary received per month despite the vague and obscure amount declared as foreign remittances having been specifically challenged. This would also apply to the non-disclosure of the account maintained with the Bank of Abu Dhabi. Nothing has been placed on record to show that a request had been made for closing the account before submitting the nomination paper,” the verdict read.
The bench observed in its judgment that political forces should settle their grievances at political forums. “However, when political forces, instead of settling disputes at the political forums, particularly the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) resort to the courts, it has consequences not only for the institutions but the litigant public as well,” the judgment read.
“This conduct of political forces lowers public confidence in the Legislature on the one hand and on the other hand exposes the institution of the judiciary to the controversies of adversarial politics. The political forces are expected to settle their grievances before the political forums rather than taking the precious time of the bona fide litigants awaiting justice to be dispensed,” it added.
The petition for disqualification of Kh Asif was filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Usman Dar who was defeated by the foreign minister in the NA-110 constituency of Sialkot in the 2013 general elections by around 20,000 votes.
“It would have been appropriate if the political party to which the petitioner belongs had raised the issue at hand in the Parliament before invoking the jurisdiction of this court,” the judgment read. “Parliament is a symbol of unity of the Federation and the people’s will. Parliament deserves utmost respect and its prestige and public confidence depends on the conduct of its members who represent the actual stakeholders i.e. the people of Pakistan.”
“It is ironic that Pakistan is amongst the few countries where a formal code of ethics and conduct for members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and the cabinet has not been prescribed so as to avoid situations such as have been observed in the facts and circumstances of the instant petition,” the verdict read. “We have handed down this judgment with a heavy heart not only because a seasoned and accomplished political figure stands disqualified but more so because the dreams and aspirations of 342,125 registered voters have suffered a setback,” the bench said in its concluding statement on the judgment disqualifying the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stalwart.
Published in Daily Times, April 27th 2018.
.jpg)
.jpg)