data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5c330/5c3309743595641515abb59c77fc65acfe9304c0" alt="tribune tribune"
During the hearing, Malik's lawyer presented his client's declaration of renouncing his British nationality, but the three-member bench disregarded the documents as 'meaningless' and remarked that the documents were not what the bench asked for.
The bench added that documents suggest that Malik was holding dual nationality at the time when he became a member of the Senate.
“The court orders are being ridiculed… Why required documents were not submitted to the court,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed in an interim order.
Express News correspondent Sabur Ali reported that Malik's lawyer claimed that he had submitted the required documents in the court, but failed to submit any evidence of Malik renouncing his British nationality during the hearing.
The attorney general argued that the Supreme Court is not the competent authority to disqualify or suspend anyone's membership and the court's suspension of Farahnaz Ipahani's National Assembly membership was also incorrect.
Malik’s lawyer had submitted an affidavit before the court earlier stating that he renounced his British citizenship in 2008, but has failed to produce the required evidence. The court maintained that there was discrepancy in the dates submitted in the documents and the court was being misled.
The Supreme Court admitted another application against the dual nationality held by 17 other parliamentarians, including Hafeez Shaikh, Khwaja Asif and Sabir Baloch.
The apex court adjourned the case hearing till June 13.
Earlier, the Supreme Court suspended the National Assembly membership of Farahnaz Ispahani, media adviser to President Asif Ali Zardari, for holding a US citizenship and warned Malik over the matter too.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi, who alleged that Rehman Malik held British nationality.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ