SHC dismisses petitions seeking disqualification of PPP leaders

The Sindh High Court on Monday dismissed identical petitions seeking disqualification of Pakistan People Party lawmakers, including Faryal Talpur, Syed Nasir Hussain Shah, for concealing their work permit visa (Iqama) from the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Petitioners filed quo warranto petitions (which are prerogative writs requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold). They sought permanent disqualification of PPP lawmakers Faryal Talpur, Syed Nasir Hussain Shah, Manzoor Wasan, Sardar Khan Chandio and Sohail Anwar Sial from holding public office on account of alleged non-disclosure of their iqamas in their nomination forms.

They submitted that the PPP MPAs failed to disclose their iqamas and other assets in the nomination forms and/or in the statement of assets accompanying their nomination forms, therefore, they could not be considered “sadiq and ameen (truthful and honest)” and they should be disqualified from the parliament under Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

Their counsel submitted that an iqama was an asset which merited disclosure in the nomination forms/statement of assets accompanying the nomination forms. They submitted that since the iqama was issued on payment of a fee, therefore, it constituted an asset. It was further argued that purportedly an iqama was issued on the basis of employment and/or ownership of immovable assets, therefore, the existence of an iqama was prima facie proof of assets, either crystallised or receivable, and non-disclosure thereof was a culpable act.

The counsel for PPP lawmakers argued that an iqama was merely a visa/entry permit and under no circumstances did it fall within the definition of an asset. They argued that a fee is generally paid for visas, however, a visa is not declared as an asset in the respective wealth statement. They submitted that visa was a mere license, for ingress and egress into a country, analogous to a license to practice law or medicine which also requires payment of a fee, however, the licensee is not obliged to declare it as an asset in his nomination form.

They contended that firstly an iqama was not an asset, secondly that there was no requirement or provision to disclose it in the relevant nomination papers, and finally that all the respective assets had been duly disclosed requesting court to dismiss the petitions as non-maintainable.

The SHC’s division bench, comprising Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Agha Faisal, after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed in the present facts and circumstances there was no demonstrable existence of any asset, either crystallised or receivable.

The court observed that under the Supreme Court’s judgment facts about disqualification of a member of a house, the case must be based on affirmative evidence and not upon presumptions, inferences and surmises. The court observed that the petitioners’ counsel have been unable to demonstrate the admitted or irrefutable existence of any undisclosed assets, therefore, the lawyer had no occasion to associate it with any malfeasance.

The court observed that the petitioners have been unable to demonstrate that an iqama was an asset and no requirement for disclosure of an iqama in the nomination form or statement of assets accompanying them was placed before the court.

The court observed that there was no admission or irrefutable evidence placed on file to demonstrate the existence of any undisclosed assets, crystallised or receivable, non-disclosure whereof would render a member unqualified to hold public office as per Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, therefore, these petitions are hereby determined to be devoid of merit and dismissed.