Tareen indecisive to appeal disqualification

PTI leader’s legal team advising him not to challenge verdict because of limited scope

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) senior leader Jahangir Tareen has yet to decide on filing a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgment, disqualifying him from being member of the National Assembly for concealing assets in his nomination papers.

A close aide to Tareen revealed to The Express Tribune that the PTI former general secretary was not interested in mounting a challenge to the December 15 verdict on his disqualification.

“He is very dejected and has left for the United Kingdom, where he will spend some time along with his family. Tareen was not expecting his disqualification in the case. Even his family is recommending him to quit politics,” he revealed.

He added that there was no chance that he would return Pakistan in the next ten days.



“Interestingly, the PTI leadership is urging Tareen to file review petition. Three senior party leaders have even recommended him to criticise two members of the bench because they were also part of the Sadiq Baloch case where the court had ordered by-election in Tareen’s constituency. However, he refused to do so,” he added.

His close friend also revealed that Tareen was jilted over the attitude of some party leaders before and after the announcement of the judgment on his disqualification.

Meanwhile, it is learnt that Tareen’s legal team has also advised him not to challenge the SC verdict because of its limited scope. It is rare that the court while hearing review petitions reversed its decisions. The same bench hears the review petition.

A senior lawyer believes that it will be wise if Tareen does not file a review petition and adds that the PTI leader should learn a lesson from the Sharif family case, when former prime minister Nawaz Sharif challenged the July 28 verdict on his disqualification but the court rejected his review with more reasons and used very harsh language against his conduct.



The lawyer stated that Tareen may get relief in case a larger bench decides that the disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is time bound. Likewise it is the best time that both the PTI and the PML-N should amend the constitutional clause.

On the other hand, a senior PTI leader while speaking on the condition of anonymity said that Tareen has a strong case for review because the bench could not interpret the English law in his case.

He said Tareen will seek legal opinions from English law firms regarding the interpretation of his Trust Deed in the UK and will decide his future course of action later.

PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi had sought Tareen’s disqualification on four different grounds. During the hearing, the bench hinted at probing the authenticity of his claim regarding his agriculture income from 18,565 acres leased land.

However, the Supreme Court in its judgment showed restraint by saying that the matter is already sub judice in different courts; therefore, it would not pass any such order.

The Supreme Court has rejected the petitioner’s allegations against Tareen of using his influence to get the loan written off.

Likewise, the court in its recent verdict also closed the chapter regarding his involvement in insider trading during Musharraf’s regime. It also did not pass any directive on the allegations of tax evasion.



Similarly, though the court raised various questions over money trail for the purchase of UK’s 12-acre house, it did not pass any order for further probe.

Earlier, the Supreme Court declared that Shiny View Limited (SVL) – an offshore company established by Tareen and having the legal title of the 12-acre ‘Hyde House’ property -- is, in actuality, owned by Tareen.

“SVL or Hyde House was never transferred to any trust by the respondent, thus, it is his asset which he has failed to declare in his nomination papers filed on September 9, 2015 according to the mandate of the law to contest the by-elections from NA-154 (Lodhran) and; therefore, he is not honest in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA,” says the verdict.

Ambiguity over the period of disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution persists despite two major political leaders having been sent packing by the Supreme Court under the provision this year.

A section of the lawyers community is even raising questions over the court having disqualified both the leaders under Article 62(1)(f) for the offence of mis-declaration in their nomination papers.

They believe that the accused should have only been de-seated under The Representation of People Act (Ropa), 1976 for offence of concealment of assets.

Some lawyers suggest that it is the best time for judges as well as parliamentarians to settle whether disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is time specific.

At present, former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s judgments are in field, which held that disqualification under the article was for life. However, some earlier verdicts did not envisage permanent disqualification.