Top court dismisses Hanif Abbasi’s review petition
Constitutional plea seeking PM Imran’s disqualification was rejected in Dec 2017
PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday dismissed Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi’s review petition against rejection of his December 15, 2017 constitutional plea, seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Imran Khan under Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution on sundry grounds.
The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, conducted the hearing wherein Akram Sheikh, counsel for the applicant, consistently urged that the court did not follow the larger bench’s judgement in the Panamagate verdict where the rule of strict liability was applied and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted while the same was not being done in this case about the qualification of Imran.
“There is a judgement by three judges laying down a strict liability principle. The other bench of the three judges cannot hold a different view because under Article 176 it is the one Supreme Court which must speak with one voice and not multiple voices and opinions. Therefore, in this case applying the strict liability principles, non-disclosure of assets of Jemima Khan in his nomination papers, including her bank accounts and other global properties, the respondent suffers from even graver acts of misdeclaration and concealments and is liable to be visited with penalties not less than those imposed in the case of Imran Khan Niazi vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,” Sheikh stated.
When the CJP said that his contention was not mentioned in the formulations, Sheikh said that not only the concealment and misdeclaration was highlighted in the written submission on conclusion of the arguments.
Sheikh also questioned the authenticity of documents submitted by PM Imran, saying that the documents did not come through a proper custody and did not fulfil the requirement of Qanoon –i- Shahadat and these were submitted in piecemeal.
Likewise, he said that most of the banks, which were referred by the incumbent PM, had already been closed in the United Kingdom.
The CJP responded that that aspect had already been discussed in the judgement. Likewise, he says that they are not bound to apply the procedure and it is satisfaction of the court whether to accept any document in the matters, which are being adjudicated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
When Abbasi’s counsel stated that he is highlighting the points wherein the court did “juristic oversight”, Justice Bandial remarked that the term juristic oversight is in fact “misreading”.
“Beauty of your arguments is that you are seeking to review the judgement without reading a single line as you are probably appealing yourself and the audience,” said Justice Bandial.
The counsel; however, stated that he did not want to embarrass the judges by reading the judgement before them.
Sheikh said that the Supreme Court judges were not infallible; therefore, if the judgement proceeded on any wrong assumption of facts and law or of any other human error, that must be corrected, adding that the SC had condoned fake accounts.
The counsel further submitted that parliament had been negligent from its duty to promulgate a law under Article 188 of the Constitution and did not perform its duty to provide for the prerequisite framework for exercise of this trust power.
He further submitted that even the Supreme Court did not make rules for exercise of the review jurisdiction under constitutional jurisdiction - starting with articles 184(1), 184(2) and 184(3). Therefore, the scope and power of the review should be interpreted as a power equivalent to an intra-court appeal by either a larger bench or a different set of judges because otherwise if the review is heard in accordance of the provisions of the Order XXVI from Rule 1 to 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the judges have to be the same who rendered the judgement and this violates the basic principle that “no one can be a judge in his own cause”. So a judgment being rendered by a bench of three judges if is reviewed by the same three honourable judges on the principles similar to Order XLVII, then is a very superfluous corrective measure and the first court of appeal exercising its power under Article 184(3) becomes the last and the final court rendering such judgement.
After hearing the arguments, the bench noted that no case is made out; therefore, the review petition is dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday dismissed Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi’s review petition against rejection of his December 15, 2017 constitutional plea, seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Imran Khan under Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution on sundry grounds.
The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, conducted the hearing wherein Akram Sheikh, counsel for the applicant, consistently urged that the court did not follow the larger bench’s judgement in the Panamagate verdict where the rule of strict liability was applied and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted while the same was not being done in this case about the qualification of Imran.
“There is a judgement by three judges laying down a strict liability principle. The other bench of the three judges cannot hold a different view because under Article 176 it is the one Supreme Court which must speak with one voice and not multiple voices and opinions. Therefore, in this case applying the strict liability principles, non-disclosure of assets of Jemima Khan in his nomination papers, including her bank accounts and other global properties, the respondent suffers from even graver acts of misdeclaration and concealments and is liable to be visited with penalties not less than those imposed in the case of Imran Khan Niazi vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,” Sheikh stated.
When the CJP said that his contention was not mentioned in the formulations, Sheikh said that not only the concealment and misdeclaration was highlighted in the written submission on conclusion of the arguments.
Sheikh also questioned the authenticity of documents submitted by PM Imran, saying that the documents did not come through a proper custody and did not fulfil the requirement of Qanoon –i- Shahadat and these were submitted in piecemeal.
Likewise, he said that most of the banks, which were referred by the incumbent PM, had already been closed in the United Kingdom.
The CJP responded that that aspect had already been discussed in the judgement. Likewise, he says that they are not bound to apply the procedure and it is satisfaction of the court whether to accept any document in the matters, which are being adjudicated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
When Abbasi’s counsel stated that he is highlighting the points wherein the court did “juristic oversight”, Justice Bandial remarked that the term juristic oversight is in fact “misreading”.
“Beauty of your arguments is that you are seeking to review the judgement without reading a single line as you are probably appealing yourself and the audience,” said Justice Bandial.
The counsel; however, stated that he did not want to embarrass the judges by reading the judgement before them.
Sheikh said that the Supreme Court judges were not infallible; therefore, if the judgement proceeded on any wrong assumption of facts and law or of any other human error, that must be corrected, adding that the SC had condoned fake accounts.
The counsel further submitted that parliament had been negligent from its duty to promulgate a law under Article 188 of the Constitution and did not perform its duty to provide for the prerequisite framework for exercise of this trust power.
He further submitted that even the Supreme Court did not make rules for exercise of the review jurisdiction under constitutional jurisdiction - starting with articles 184(1), 184(2) and 184(3). Therefore, the scope and power of the review should be interpreted as a power equivalent to an intra-court appeal by either a larger bench or a different set of judges because otherwise if the review is heard in accordance of the provisions of the Order XXVI from Rule 1 to 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, the judges have to be the same who rendered the judgement and this violates the basic principle that “no one can be a judge in his own cause”. So a judgment being rendered by a bench of three judges if is reviewed by the same three honourable judges on the principles similar to Order XLVII, then is a very superfluous corrective measure and the first court of appeal exercising its power under Article 184(3) becomes the last and the final court rendering such judgement.
After hearing the arguments, the bench noted that no case is made out; therefore, the review petition is dismissed.