SC debates if Khawaja Asif can be disqualified for life
Both counsels present arguments to convince judges in case
Khawaja Asif, PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court discussed on Thursday if Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was applicable in the case of the lifetime disqualification of former foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) had disqualified him for life for not disclosing his employment in a UAE-based company and his monthly salary.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Atta Bandial and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, resumed the hearing of Khawaja Asif’s appeal against the IHC judgment.
The court questioned if the same article could be applied for violating Section 42A of the Representation of People Act of 1976, binding all parliamentarians to submit details of assets and liabilities.
Khawaja Asif’s disqualification sparks joy and grief in political camps
It also examined if the lawmaker could be disqualified under Section 99 of ROPA.
The duration of disqualification under Article 62 is usually for five years, but under Article 62(1)(f), an MNA’s disqualification is for life.
The court also wondered if Article 62 (1) (f) was applicable in the 'conflicts of interest’.
The court observed that Khawaja Asif’s tax return identified him as a businessman, but he did not disclose that he was employed abroad. That only happened after the writ had been filed in the IHC.
It also wondered if lawmakers could be disqualified for life under Article 62(1)(f) of Constitution for not disclosing their income sources.
Judges on the bench observed that they were not only examining if the appellant had truly declared his assets, but also scrutinising whether or not Asif was telling the truth.
Khawaja Asif disqualified for life by Islamabad High Court
Justice Bandial observed that the case before them was not under Article 184(3), but they were hearing an appeal against the IHC judgment based on the writ petition under Article 199, which was a different jurisdiction.
Justice Bandial asked if it was not sufficient that the appellant had declared his foreign salary, adding that they did not want to destroy anyone’s career on the basis of mere assumptions.
“He (Khawaja Asif) received money from abroad, which he (duly) mentioned in his tax return … We don’t want to go into the nitty-gritty. He (the former minister) can be discharged but cannot be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f). If he did not pay taxes it is a separate issue.”
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, the counsel for Usman Dar, contended that Section 42(a) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 talked about corrupt practices and Khawaja Asif violated his legal obligation by not disclosing the source of business. The violation of Section 42(a), he said, led to disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).
He insisted that Khawaja Asif had signed a contract with the foreign firm, but he did not disclose it in his nomination papers, adding that he was receiving money from two sources: one his salary and the money from his restaurant in the UAE.
He made several other such arguments, but Justice Umar said that they were not looking into disputed facts in the quo warranto proceedings.
Later, the case was adjourned until Friday (today).
The Supreme Court discussed on Thursday if Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was applicable in the case of the lifetime disqualification of former foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) had disqualified him for life for not disclosing his employment in a UAE-based company and his monthly salary.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Atta Bandial and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, resumed the hearing of Khawaja Asif’s appeal against the IHC judgment.
The court questioned if the same article could be applied for violating Section 42A of the Representation of People Act of 1976, binding all parliamentarians to submit details of assets and liabilities.
Khawaja Asif’s disqualification sparks joy and grief in political camps
It also examined if the lawmaker could be disqualified under Section 99 of ROPA.
The duration of disqualification under Article 62 is usually for five years, but under Article 62(1)(f), an MNA’s disqualification is for life.
The court also wondered if Article 62 (1) (f) was applicable in the 'conflicts of interest’.
The court observed that Khawaja Asif’s tax return identified him as a businessman, but he did not disclose that he was employed abroad. That only happened after the writ had been filed in the IHC.
It also wondered if lawmakers could be disqualified for life under Article 62(1)(f) of Constitution for not disclosing their income sources.
Judges on the bench observed that they were not only examining if the appellant had truly declared his assets, but also scrutinising whether or not Asif was telling the truth.
Khawaja Asif disqualified for life by Islamabad High Court
Justice Bandial observed that the case before them was not under Article 184(3), but they were hearing an appeal against the IHC judgment based on the writ petition under Article 199, which was a different jurisdiction.
Justice Bandial asked if it was not sufficient that the appellant had declared his foreign salary, adding that they did not want to destroy anyone’s career on the basis of mere assumptions.
“He (Khawaja Asif) received money from abroad, which he (duly) mentioned in his tax return … We don’t want to go into the nitty-gritty. He (the former minister) can be discharged but cannot be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f). If he did not pay taxes it is a separate issue.”
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, the counsel for Usman Dar, contended that Section 42(a) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 talked about corrupt practices and Khawaja Asif violated his legal obligation by not disclosing the source of business. The violation of Section 42(a), he said, led to disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).
He insisted that Khawaja Asif had signed a contract with the foreign firm, but he did not disclose it in his nomination papers, adding that he was receiving money from two sources: one his salary and the money from his restaurant in the UAE.
He made several other such arguments, but Justice Umar said that they were not looking into disputed facts in the quo warranto proceedings.
Later, the case was adjourned until Friday (today).