In recent past SC allowed all those de-seated to re-contest polls

Comment

ISLAMABAD: The July 28, 2017 judgment, which has disqualified yet another prime minister, was based on one point that though Nawaz Sharif was not receiving salary from UAE-based firm, mere mention of salary on appointment letter makes it a “receivable”, thus an asset, which was not declared so he is not Sadiq and Ameen and hence disqualified. 

The premier is disqualified by using article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, which means life-time disqualification. 

All financial experts agree that there is no need of any declaration if there are no financial benefits and most importantly no question even arises if there is a written declaration of taking no financial benefit on this count. In its judgment, the apex court itself declared that there is no mention of definition of “asset” in the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) and thus definition of ‘asset’ was understood from different dictionaries. 

It is important that in all the cases of mis-declaration of assets in recent past, the legislators were de-seated under section 12 and 99 of ROPA by the Supreme Court and they were allowed to re-contest the elections though there was clear non-declaration of known assets and accused even admitted having those undeclared assets in courts. In none of these cases, article 62(1) (f) was invoked and none of them was declared as not being ‘sadiq and ameen’. Declaring any legislator being not ‘sadiq and ameen’ means disqualification for lifetime. Supreme Court had de-seated legislators in cases of mis-declaration of assets and they were free to re-contest elections despite the fact they actually failed to declare some assets, a fact which was also proved in court of law. However, in case of former Prime Minister Nawaz, there was no asset which was not declared and apex court also admitted the position that salary was not taken but it declared that as appointment letter mentions salary, so even un-withdrawn salary becomes receivable, hence an asset which was not declared. Usually it is not perceived that a person declaring tens of millions of money in his declaration, will ever try to hide a few lakh rupees. 

According to April 20 judgment note by Honourable Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, article 62(1)(f) could not be allowed to be used as a tool for political engineering by the Supreme Court, nor should it arrogate to itself the power to vet candidates on moral grounds. “Under our constitutional dispensation, Pakistan is to be governed by the representatives chosen by the people and not chosen by any institution or a few individuals,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had written in his note in the April 20 judgment. 

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in the majority judgment of April 20 held that the court did not feel inclined to arrogate to itself power or exercise a jurisdiction which had not been conferred on it by any act of parliament or even by Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Both the respected judges in their April 20 judgment were of the view that article 62 and 63 cannot be invoked while exercising the jurisdiction under article 184(3) of the constitution.