ISLAMABAD: Apparently, despite having zero evidence of corruption against the elected civilian prime minister Nawaz Sharif, an undeclared ‘receivable’ salary of a now-dissolved company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has led to his 'technical knock out', making him the only elected premier who has been thrown out of the power corridors on three occasions in the political and constitutional history of the country.
Nawaz Sharif is unusual in being the only elected civilian prime minister thrown out of the office by the President (1993), the Army Chief (1999) and now the Supreme Court. Nawaz Sharif has not been disqualified on the allegations given in the petitions by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Sheikh Rashid Ahmad.
So in simple terms it can safely be said that Nawaz Sharif was alleged of looting billions but he has been disqualified for not declaring Iqama in his assets despite the fact that there is no evidence that he even drew any salary through it.
The review of the verdict given by the 5-member larger bench of the Supreme Court clearly showed zero evidence of corruption against Nawaz Sharif but he is now the tenth elected premier who has failed to complete his 5-year constitutional term since 1971.
Even when the court talks about the assets beyond means in the verdict it never pointed out any proved corruption against Nawaz Sharif and only maintained that "Where there is an allegation that a holder of a public office or any of his dependents or benamidars owns or possesses any assets or pecuniary resources which are disproportionate to his known sources of income which he cannot reasonably account for he can be convicted of an offense of corruption and corrupt practices."
The apex court admitted in the verdict "the word asset has not been defined in the Representation of the People Act 1976 ("ROPA"), therefore, its ordinary meaning has to be considered for the purposes of this case." Then the honorable court took help from Black's Law Dictionary that states "an asset can be (i) something physical such as cash, machinery, inventory, land and building (ii) an enforceable claim against others such as accounts receivable (iii) rights such as copyright, patent trademark etc (iv) an assumption such as goodwill."
In the defense of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif it was stated in categorical terms, "So far as the designation of respondent No 1 as Chairman of the Board is concerned, this was only a ceremonial office acquired in 2007 when the respondent No. 1 was in exile, and had nothing to do with running the company or supervising its affairs. Similarly, the respondent No. 1 did not withdraw the salary of AED 10,000. Thus, the salary shown in the Employment Contract in effect never constituted an “asset” for the respondent No. 1.”
The court, however, declared, "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."
