SC examines if public office bar on dual nationals is absolute
Seven-member bench seeks replies over Article 63 (1) (c) of the Constitution
Representational image for dual nationalities. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has sought replies to determine if the bar on a citizen holding dual nationality from being a parliament member is absolute under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution.
A seven-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar has asked counsels for Punjab Governor Chaudhry Mohammad Sarwar and other lawmakers to submit replies in this regard.
During the hearing, a member of the bench, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, observed that the apex court’s interpretation should be liberal and not punitive.
“The Constitution is forever and we should give a chance to those who renounce their foreign nationality and join parliament,” he said.
However, according to Justice Gulzar Ahmad when anyone acquires a foreign nationality, he is disqualified permanently.
Zulfi Bukhari's appointment challenged in SC
The court is seized with the question: whether the surrender of foreign nationality made by a citizen vying for a public office is permanent in nature or revocable.
Bilal Hassan Minto, as amicus curia, opined that a person stood permanently disqualified to contest election for a public office the moment he or she acquired nationality of another country.
However, the bench asked Minto to submit his formulations in writing. The hearing of the case is adjourned for a week.
Meanwhile, another bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, sought an order from a UK-based international arbitration panel as it heard a plea, seeking Volume 10 of the Joint Investigation Team report in the Panamagate case.
Broadsheet LLC has approached the apex court to seek a copy of the report on the Panama Papers case for a final decision on the quantum of damages against Pakistan over an international dispute with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan opposed the plea, saying that the copy of Volume 10 could not be given to the party as the matter was sensitive.
“The Supreme Court in the July 10, 2017 order had sealed Volume 10,” he added.
Sardar Latif Khosa, the counsel for the company, argued that the copy was sought by international tribunal as well as NAB. “If the court does not share a copy with me, it should also reject the NAB’s request in this regard,” he said.
Khosa also said that NAB and Broadsheet LLC jointly moved the application seeking volume 10.
However, NAB prosecutor Asghar Haider opposed the suggestion, saying that there was no such order to bar NAB from getting Volume 10.
The bench asked him to submit the international tribunal order regarding Volume 10. The hearing is adjourned till October 11.
The International Arbitration is hearing a claim by Broadsheet LLC against Pakistan and NAB at the London office of Allen & Overy, according to the law firm’s representative.
Former English Court of Appeal judge Sir Anthony Evans QC heard the case as sole arbitrator in a London-seated proceeding under the rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
According to the Global Arbitration Review (GAR), the firm’s claim against Pakistan is worth at least $600 million but a senior official told The Express Tribune that the claim is $316 million.
The Supreme Court has sought replies to determine if the bar on a citizen holding dual nationality from being a parliament member is absolute under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution.
A seven-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar has asked counsels for Punjab Governor Chaudhry Mohammad Sarwar and other lawmakers to submit replies in this regard.
During the hearing, a member of the bench, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, observed that the apex court’s interpretation should be liberal and not punitive.
“The Constitution is forever and we should give a chance to those who renounce their foreign nationality and join parliament,” he said.
However, according to Justice Gulzar Ahmad when anyone acquires a foreign nationality, he is disqualified permanently.
Zulfi Bukhari's appointment challenged in SC
The court is seized with the question: whether the surrender of foreign nationality made by a citizen vying for a public office is permanent in nature or revocable.
Bilal Hassan Minto, as amicus curia, opined that a person stood permanently disqualified to contest election for a public office the moment he or she acquired nationality of another country.
However, the bench asked Minto to submit his formulations in writing. The hearing of the case is adjourned for a week.
Meanwhile, another bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, sought an order from a UK-based international arbitration panel as it heard a plea, seeking Volume 10 of the Joint Investigation Team report in the Panamagate case.
Broadsheet LLC has approached the apex court to seek a copy of the report on the Panama Papers case for a final decision on the quantum of damages against Pakistan over an international dispute with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan opposed the plea, saying that the copy of Volume 10 could not be given to the party as the matter was sensitive.
“The Supreme Court in the July 10, 2017 order had sealed Volume 10,” he added.
Sardar Latif Khosa, the counsel for the company, argued that the copy was sought by international tribunal as well as NAB. “If the court does not share a copy with me, it should also reject the NAB’s request in this regard,” he said.
Khosa also said that NAB and Broadsheet LLC jointly moved the application seeking volume 10.
However, NAB prosecutor Asghar Haider opposed the suggestion, saying that there was no such order to bar NAB from getting Volume 10.
The bench asked him to submit the international tribunal order regarding Volume 10. The hearing is adjourned till October 11.
The International Arbitration is hearing a claim by Broadsheet LLC against Pakistan and NAB at the London office of Allen & Overy, according to the law firm’s representative.
Former English Court of Appeal judge Sir Anthony Evans QC heard the case as sole arbitrator in a London-seated proceeding under the rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
According to the Global Arbitration Review (GAR), the firm’s claim against Pakistan is worth at least $600 million but a senior official told The Express Tribune that the claim is $316 million.