ISLAMABAD: In his review petition filed with the Supreme Court, deposed prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has mentioned that he has been ousted while quoting the Black’s Law Dictionary but none of the editions of the said dictionary supports the definition of an asset relied upon by the apex court.
Black’s Law Dictionary is considered as the most credible law dictionary in the world.Nawaz Sharif was disqualified citing the Black’s Law Dictionary by the SC mentioning receivable salary constitutes an assets according to the legal bible.
Whereas, Nawaz Sharif in his review petition has taken plea that ‘the definition of the term “asset” relied upon by this august court is not supported by any of the editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, nor is the definition so relied the only definition of this term as per standard legal, business, and/or other dictionaries’.
Mian Nawaz Sharif has submitted in his review petition that even if his un-received salary from FZE Company constituted an asset even then it does not make him dishonest because it was mere misunderstanding of law and there was no mala fide involved in such omission.
The review petition has cited a few judgements of the SC where it has been agreed upon by the honorable judges that mere omission of not declaring an asset does not make a candidate dishonest. The petition sates that the omission to mention the un-withdrawn salary by Mian Nawaz Sharif in his nomination papers could not, in any case, per se lead to a declaration in terms of Section 99 (f) of ROPA and article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution, without first ascertaining whether such omission was deliberate or with an ulterior motive, or merely inadvertent, accidental or due to a misconception or misunderstanding of law or fact. “That it being a question of first impression as to whether “receivables” constitute an asset or not for the purposes of Section 12(2) of ROPA, no dishonest intention could be attributed to the petitioner even if such salary is categorized by this Hon’ble Court as receivable and held to constitute an asset held by the petitioner as such”, the petition adds.
Citing a few judgements of the SC, the review petition states that in Muhammad Yusuf’s case (PLD 1973 SC 160), in Muhammad Saeed’s case (PLD 1957 SC 91) and in the case titled Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen (PLD 2016 SC 97) the court had viewed that since disqualification of an elected representative is penal in nature, the terms thereof are subject to strict interpretation and benefit of doubt is to be extended in favour of the returned candidate. It has also been held in this case that a finding of disqualification must be based on positive evidence, and must not be rendered inferentially or on mere surmises.
That the SC in its judgment reported as Rai Hassan Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub; PLD 2017 SC 70 held that indeed an error or omission that is neither intentional nor pertains to a material particular in relation to the assets or liabilities of a contesting candidate would not constitute a corrupt practice such as would fall within the pale of section 78 (3)(d) of the ROPA, 1976.
“That so far as the finding given by this Hon’ble Court to the effect that (simply) because the petitioner did not declare the un-withdrawn salary as his asset in his nomination papers, he is not honest in terms of Section 99 (f) of ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, it is submitted that the inference so drawn is without taking note of the ratio laid down in Sheikh Muhammad Akram’s case (2016 SCMR 733) wherein the hon’ble court refused to draw inference of dishonesty merely because the returned candidate therein, in making a statement on solemn affirmation, had omitted to disclose in his nomination papers the factum of an FIR registered against him, rather a number of factors were held to be relevant for determining whether mere omission to mention a fact on solemn affirmation could be termed as dishonest so as to attract the provisions of article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution”, Nawaz Sharif’s petition adds.
