‘MP to be dishonest if fails to justify assets acquired’

ISLAMABAD: Though the verdict of Panama Papers case could not get endorsement from the two judgments of Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen case, however Justice Faisal Arab in his additional note has endorsed the Panama verdict.

Justice Faisal Arab in his additional note while comparing Imran Khan’s disqualification case with Mian Nawaz Sharif’s case has mentioned that the Sharif family had very little explanation as to how these assets were built, who its shareholders are, what the source of funds was and how funds were generated and routed.

“The sources of acquiring several assets were not satisfactorily explained by him and the members of family, which included purchase of four flats in London, setting up of Azizia Steel Factory in Saudi Arabia, Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai and receiving Rs840 million on regular basis over a period of four years from 2011 to 2015 as gifts from an entity called Hill Metals established in Jeddah by Nawaz Sharif’s son. None of these assets were acquired prior to his holding of high public offices. There was either total or very little explanation as to how these assets were built, who its shareholders are, what the source of funds was and how funds were generated and routed….”, says Justice Faisal Arab in his additional note.

He said that the cases of Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif are drastically different from each other as there were serious allegations of corruption, money laundering and assets beyond means on the latter.

Justice Faisal Arab in his note says, “Much reliance was placed on the case of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi Vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 265) popularly known as Panama Case in order to draw parity between the two cases. The factual controversy in that case is drastically different from the facts of the present case. In that case serious allegations of money laundering, corruption and possession of assets beyond known means were made against Nawaz Sharif after he held public office. In fact he held high public offices several times in the past thirty years in his capacity as finance minister, chief minister and prime minister. It was observed in that case that for such a person, honesty, transparency, clean reputation and unquestionable integrity and financial probity were necessary in order to clear his position.”

Legally, he said one common penalty cannot be imposed for all kind of dishonest acts. Attributing dishonesty to every omission to disclose an asset should not be made a rule set in stone and applied to disqualify a member on the touchstone of Section 99 (1) (f) of RoPA or Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The courts should not close its eyes to an omission which on the face of it could not be said to be dishonest, the additional note says.

While explaining the act of dishonesty Justice Faisal Arab in his additional note said, “Where an asset is acquired by a member or his spouse or any of his dependents after becoming a member and it surfaces through any source, which he has failed to disclose, the member in quo warranto proceedings can be called to explain the means of its acquisition. If he is unable to extend a judicially acceptable explanation, only then such non-disclosure would be regarded as a failure to pass the test of honestly as envisaged under Section 99 (1) (f) of RoPA read with Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Apart from being declared disqualified from holding his office, the member will also face charges for possessing wealth beyond his known sources of income. Thus concealment of an asset from the public eye that was acquired after entering upon office, for which the member is unable to give a judicially acceptable explanation, is to be treated as an act of concealment with dishonest intentions. This is the difference in attributing dishonesty with regard to an omission to disclose an asset acquired before and after becoming a member of the National or a Provincial Assembly”.

Justice Faisal also explained the non-disclosure of unspent salary of Nawaz Sharif due to which he was disqualified. “Considering the high public office which Nawaz Sharif held over the years, accumulation of his monthly salaries from Capital FZE was considered as concealment of an asset which led this court in the Panama case to hold that it was a dishonest act on his part, falling within the ambit of Section 99 (1) (f) of RoPA read with Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Under the income tax law, salary income falling in a particular tax year has to be treated as income of that year and if taxable is liable to be assessed in that tax year. No one can avoid tax liability on his salary income accrued in a particular tax year on the ground that he has not yet collected it from his employer. So tax liability on a salary income accrued in a particular tax year if not collected voluntarily by an employee would still be liable to tax and has to be treated as an asset of the employee generated in that particular year and correspondingly it becomes the liability of the employer in the same tax year. Therefore not to collect either whole or any part of it from the employer in a tax year in which it accrued is of no legal consequence. Non-disclosure of unspent salary income which had been accumulating for a period of time was treated as concealment of asset in the Panama case. In the present case, ownership of London flat was disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his nomination form filed in 2002 general elections”.