close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Halal omission, haram omission

By Fakhar Durrani
December 17, 2017

ISLAMABAD: Omission has been defined differently — in one case it is dishonesty and in the other it is not dishonesty.

So there was Halal omission and Haram (prohibited) omission. Different approaches to omission transpired in the Panama Papers case verdict and in the judgement in the Imran Khan case.

In the Imran Khan case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, despite an omission of assets, found no dishonesty but the same court has different meaning of dishonesty in Panama Papers case. All the omissions made by Imran Khan were committed after he came into politics — whether it is non-declaration of his offshore company or his flat on 1-Constitution Avenue Tower before 2015. The December 15 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Imran Khan case clearly says that there is no dishonesty in the omission made by Imran Khan.

“We find that the Respondent has declared his advance payment made to 1-Constitution Avenue Tower, Islamabad in his statement of assets and liabilities filed with his income tax return in the tax year 2014. In the following year, the Respondent was allotted the flat and declared the same both in his assets and liabilities statement filed with his income tax return for the tax year 2015 as well as his annual return under Section 42A of the ROPA filed with the ECP in 2015. Therefore, we hold that no misdeclaration of assets was committed by the Respondent in relation to the said property in his annual return filed with the ECP in the year 2014. There is no dishonesty in the omission made by him”, says the judgement.

The judgment further says, “Indeed this exposes the weakness of the petitioner’s argument that since the Respondent’s statement of assets and liabilities of 2015 filed before the ECP provides the particulars of the Apartment and the amount of the advance payment made for it, therefore, the Respondent’s failure to mention those facts be inferred that he concealed this fact in his earlier statement of assets and liabilities for the year 2014 amounts to concealment of an asset, hence an omission attracting disqualification. We are satisfied that at the time of filing his statement of assets and liabilities in 2014 before the ECP, the Respondent did not have a specific asset to declare. It was not contended that the cash amount of the deposit represents a concealed assets; and rightly so, because the movement of cash assets was never questioned.”

“At a more practical level, the petition itself acknowledges that any omission or error in the statement of assets and liabilities under Section 42A of the ROPA is the rejection of the nomination paper, not disqualification of candidature. That consequence follows from a court of law under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution or Section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA. No such case has been pleaded or made out by the petitioner. In the light of the above, we are of the view that this plea of the petitioner is misconceived and unfounded and is thus discarded”, the judgment says.

However in Panama Papers Case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared Nawaz Sharif dishonest and hence disqualified from the office of prime minister for not declaring his un-withdrawn salary into his assets.

The Panama Papers case judgment says, “The next question emerging for the consideration of this Court is whether respondent No. 1 as a Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE is entitled to salaries and whether the salaries if not withdrawn being receivable as such constitute assets which require disclosure in terms of Section 12(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and whether his failure to disclose them would entail his disqualification?”

“The definitions reproduced above leave no doubt that a salary not withdrawn would nevertheless be receivable and as such would constitute an asset for all legal and practical purposes. When it is an asset for all legal and practical purposes, it was required to be disclosed by Respondent No. 1 in his nomination papers in terms of Section 12(2) of the ROPA. When we confronted, the learned Sr. ASC for respondent No. 1, whether the said respondent has ever acquired work permit (Iqama) in Dubai, remained Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE and was entitled to salary as such, his reply was in the affirmative with the only addition that respondent No. 1 never withdrew any salary. This admission was reiterated in more categorical terms in the written arguments filed by the learned Sr. ASC for Respondent No. 1,” the verdict says.

The judgment further said that when an un-withdrawn salary as being receivable was an asset, it was required to be disclosed by Nawaz Sharif in his statement of assets, failing to which he remains no more honest.

“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,” says the judgment.