Akram Sheikh says Nawaz should file appeal with SC

ISLAMABAD: Though ex-prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif had told the Supreme Court in black and white that neither he withdrew any salary from Capital FZE nor did he intend to withdraw any salary and his intention of not withdrawing any “receivables” was conveyed to the owner of the Capital FZE i.e. his son yet he has been disqualified on the assumption that his so-called salary, if not withdrawn, was a “receivable’ which constituted an asset, which was not declared in his nomination form.

Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan Akram Sheikh, while talking to The News, said that the government should explore the possibilities of filing an appeal in the case though the statutes only allow a review, with a limited remedy available.

“We have to go by the Constitution and not the statutesConstitution and not the statutes and in constitutional jurisdiction new forums must be explored and in the instant case, a public office holder has been disqualified by invoking Article 62-1(f) Section 12 of Representation of People’s Act read with Section 78 of Ropa; whereas in Dershan Maseh case 1957, the Supreme Court had held that when three laws apply on a same issue, one with the least punishment should be applied but the incumbent Supreme Court has invoked Article 62-1(f) of the Constitution to disqualify Nawaz Sharif,” said the lawyer. 

He said that Nawaz Sharif should file a review petition in the Supreme Court asking for formation of a larger bench minus the five Panama Papers case judges and was hopeful that it would be taken up. Sheikh was of the view that coded formalities of Dubai FZE for acquiring an Iqama have been considered as an asset whereas nether the father intended to withdraw any salary nor did the son wanted to pay any salary to his father but it was a coded formality merely for the consumption of Dubai authorities.

It is likely that the PML-N may seek specific interpretation from the apex court that if Capital FZE’s so-called salary was a receivable and has been mis-declared in the nomination forms of Nawaz Sharif, then there are numerous precedents that an MP was de-seated and allowed to contest the by-election as has happened in the case of one Justice (R) Iftikhar Cheema in January 2016. Cheema was de-seated for mis-declaring his and his spouse’s assets but was allowed to contest the by-election without invoking Article 62-1(f). In Justice (R) Cheema’s case it was admitted before the SC that some assets of spouse of the member od Parliament were not declared but the court did not invoke Article 62-1(f).

Supreme Court Bar Association President Rasheed A Rizvi, while talking to a TV channel said that if the legislature has not proposed any time limit of disqualification under Article 62-1(f) of the Constitution then it would be declared a one-time disqualification. However, this very point has to be elaborated and the government might ask the SC for such an interpretation.

The court judgement reads, “It has not been denied that respondent No 1 being Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE was entitled to salary, therefore, the statement that he did not withdraw the salary would not prevent the un-withdrawn salary from being receivable, hence an asset. When the un-withdrawn salary as being receivable is an asset it was required to be disclosed by respondent No 1 in his nomination papers for the Elections of 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA. Where respondent No 1 did not disclose his aforesaid assets, it would amount to furnishing a false declaration on solemn affirmation in violation of the law mentioned above, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”