Khawaja Asif qualified to contest polls, rules SC

Three-judge bench overturns IHC verdict imposing lifetime ban on former foreign minister

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict disqualifying former foreign minister Khawaja Asif from holding public office for life on account of non-disclosure of his employment in a UAE company as an occupation as well as the monthly salary he was drawing from it.

"Reasons to be recorded later. We convert the petition into appeal and allow the same,” says the three-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah after conducting four hearings.

Muneer A Malik successfully pleaded the case and won relief for Asif before the apex court.

It is learnt that former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had recommended Asif to hire the services of Muneer A Malik to argue his case before the Supreme Court. He, however, did not represent Asif before the IHC.



Finally, Malik convinced the bench that “there is no misdeclaration on behalf of his client regarding his annual statement about assets”, wherein it was alleged that he did not show Rs34 million salary.

The counsel further stated that there was no violation of Section 42A Representation of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) that binds all parliamentarians to submit details of annual statement of assets and liabilities.

The counsel said that the court could not apply Article 62(1)(f) on every violation.

Legal experts believe that the verdict is a departure from recent judgments rendered by the apex court, adding “Apparently, the court has given the benefit of doubt to Khawaja Asif”.

However, things will be clarified in detailed judgment, they added.



The experts urge that the apex court should set a uniform standard to examine the qualification of lawmakers, adding in the recent past, the Supreme Court had given conflicting judgments on the same subject.

First, a five-judge larger bench had disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on account of his failure to declare salary, which he had not withdrawn as an executive of a Dubai-based company as an asset when filing his nomination papers in 2013.

Though the IHC with heavy heart followed the Supreme Court’s July 28 verdict and disqualified Khawaja Asif, now the apex court itself rejected it.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court while rejecting Sharif’s review petition had observed that the court would not clear lawmakers by giving grace marks in the matters related to disqualification.

The court had declared that Article 62(1)(f) would be apply on non-fulfillment of legal obligations in nomination papers by lawmakers.



However, one section of the lawyers community says that the court showed restraint in PTI chief Imran Khan’s disqualification case and did not refer the matter for further probe to examine the veracity of documents submitted by him to establish his stance regarding the ownership of Bani Gala land as well as his offshore company.

On the other hand, PTI general secretary Jahangir Tareen has been disqualified on account of interpretation of his Trust Deed and declared that SVL, an offshore company, was established by  Tareen and he is actual, true, real and beneficial owner of the Landon property.

Without recoding the evidence, the Supreme Court had disqualified Tareen by not giving benefit of doubt.

Recently, a three-judge bench led by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed while expanding its jurisdiction has declared that it can initiate suo motu proceedings to examine the qualification of lawmakers.



The court while converting the election petition into suo motu had disqualified PML-N MPA Raja Shaukat Aziz Bhatti for lifetime on account of submitting a false declaration vis-à-vis fake academic qualifications in the 2008 elections.

Even the counsel for Bhatti had questioned the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to de-notify him after a lapse of 60 days from the original notification as a returned candidate.

However, the Supreme Court held that allowing a disqualified person to become a member of parliament or of a provincial assembly would be considered as the apex court’s failure to protect and preserve the Constitution.

“Even where a matter comes before this court regarding the qualification or disqualification of a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora or the provincial assemblies by way of proceedings other than under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, this court not only has the jurisdiction to convert such proceedings to proceedings under Article 184…but is bound to do so, as to permit an unqualified or disqualified person to continue to defile and desecrate the Majlis-e-Shoora or the Provincial Assemblies and masquerade as a chosen representative of the people would amount to frustrating the Constitutional provisions,” says the judgment.

“In such an eventuality, if this court looks the other way, it would perhaps constitute a failure to protect and preserve the Constitution,” says Justice Sheikh.

The legal experts are debating whether findings of the judgment will impact the much-awaited verdict in Sheikh Rashid’s disqualification case. The top court had reserved the judgment.

The senior lawyers recommend the Supreme Court to constitute a seven-judge larger bench to set a uniform standard for the disqualification of lawmakers.

It is also to be noted that two next chief justices Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmad in the Panamagate case verdict while endorsing Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s view had declared that the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution apply to a person’s public conduct, that affects others, rather than his private conduct not affecting generality of the populace.

Pakistan Bar Council member Raheel Kamran Sheikh while talking to The Express Tribune stated that the Supreme Court has already construed that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) will attract for life, which is manifestly harsh and stringent interpretation, and therefore caution ought to be exercised by the judiciary to avoid the blame for indulging in political cleansing.

“In my opinion, the benefit of doubt has to be extended wherever possible, which the Supreme Court seems to have done in the case; therefore, such decisions are welcome,” he adds.

Sheikh Ahsan advocate, senior member of former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s party, has also welcomed the Supreme Court’s verdict by saying that there was no misstatement by Khawaja Asif.

Interestingly, it has been witnessed that whenever Khawaja Asif approaches the Supreme Court, he gets relief.

This is the fourth apex court's decision that came in his favour for the last six years.

Earlier, Asif got judgments in matters related to RPPs, LPG quota and illegal appointments by a former caretaker prime minister.