Govt candidates to challenge Imran’s nomination today

All set to cite ‘misdeclaration’ of properties by PTI chairman

ISLAMABAD:

Candidates belonging to the ruling coalition government would raise objections on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan’s nomination papers in the upcoming by-elections on the ground of alleged material misstatement about his assets, it was learnt on Tuesday.

According to the draft of one petition, which is available with The Express Tribune, the candidates from the ruling coalition parties would raise objections on several other grounds before the returning officers (ROs) of the respective constituencies on Wednesday (today).

The by-elections were called after National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervez Ashraf accepted the resignations of 11 PTI members on July 28 – exactly 109 days after 131 party lawmakers tendered their resignations.

The PTI announced on August 5 that the party chairman would himself contest the election on the nine vacant seats in the by-elections, scheduled for September 25. Last week, Imran’s nomination papers for NA-22, NA-24, NA-31, NA-45, NA-108, and NA-118, NA-246, NA-237, NA-239 were filed.

The petition of the ruling party candidate stated that Imran Khan falsely stated in the list of his immovable properties that he “inherited” 80 kanal 4 marla land in Mauza Rangiyan Phaliyan in Ferozwala tehsil of Sheikhupura district, whereas as per the revenue record, the land was purchased by Imran Khan in 2004.

“It is matter of record that the said land has not been mutated/transferred in the name of Imran Khan Niazi by way of inheritance as his father had died on 19-03-2008, much after the purchase and sanction of the mutation,” the petition stated.

As a matter of fact, it was stated, Imran along with his four sisters jointly purchased the land measuring 500 kanal and 9 marla in Ferozewala village, Tehsil Ferozewala, Sheikhupura district and the sale deed dated 15-10-2004 was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar Tehsil Ferozewala against a sale consideration of Rs7,000,000.

“The said land was jointly purchased in equal shares from Mrs. Nighat Iram alias Mrs. Roshan Nazir Alam through her General Attorney, Mr. Ikramullah Niazi. On the basis of registered Sale Deed No. 9894 dated 15-10-2004, the land measuring 500 Kanal and 9 Marla was transferred equally in the name of all five purchasers including Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vide Mutation No. 26925 dated 29-11-2004.”

Subsequently, the petition continued, the mutation was partially modified by district officer/district collector (revenue), of Sheikhupura district, vide Order No 1200 dated 26-05-2007 by cancelling the land measuring 109 kanal and 8 marla from the names of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his four sisters and finally sanctioned the mutation of land, measuring 391 kanal and 1 marla in the name of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his four sisters.

“Out of the said total land, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi got his fifth share, i.e. 78 Kanal 04 Marla, however he has mentioned as 80 Kanal 04 Marla in the nomination papers which is another form of false statement,”, the draft of petition continued.

“Falsely mentioning the 80 Kanal 04 Marla land as inherited, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi has declared the value of said property as ZERO. This property is in millions of rupees and by not mentioning the value/cost of the said asset/land, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi has not only deceived its voters but also cheated the relevant authorities. As per the current DC rate of Sheikhupura, the value of the said property is in hundreds of million,” the petition says.

The petition contended that the consideration paid as per the sale deed for the purchase of land for around 100 kanal 2 marla as per first mutation of 500 Kanal 9 marla or even for 80 kanal 4 marla as per subsequent mutation is totally unexplained and undeclared in the relevant tax record of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. Thus, it appears that false declaration had also been made before the tax authorities.
Second misstatement

The petition further stated that the second material misstatement in the nomination papers was that Imran mentioned his ownership of House No 2, Zaman Park, Lahore, measuring 148 marlas through inheritance. “As a matter of fact, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi has inherited only 2 Kanal 08 Marla out of this property/house,” the petition claimed.

Regarding the ownership detail of this property/house, the petition stated that Shaukat Khanum, the mother of Imran Khan, owned this property/house.

“The property devolved upon five legal heirs of Mst. Shoukat Khanum, i.e. four daughters and one son through inheritance mutation No. 6244 sanctioned on 22-01-2010. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi being son has got share of 2 Kanal 08 Marla and each of the four daughters i.e. got 01 Kanal 04 Marla,” it added.

“Even supposedly if the whole property/house is owned by Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the total area of this property/house as per Revenue Record is 07 Kanal 04 Marla. Thus, if converted into Marla, it comes to 144 Marla and not 148 Marla as mentioned in the Nomination Papers.”

READ Imran reveals assets worth Rs342m

It appears, the petition further contended, that Imran had in fact now purchased the shares of all his sisters in the house/land; therefore, he declared the whole house/land as his property; “and now the real question is how and from where he got the money/sale consideration to purchase the shares of the sisters in the house; There appears to be no declared income to purchase the whole house except through unknown, illegal sources”, the petition said.

Since the knowledge of the transaction, “relating to the subject matter of this objection lies peculiarly with Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, therefore, in such situation, burden of proof also lie upon Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 to prove the contrary fact”.

“By over-declaring the share in House No. 2, Zaman Park, Lahore, measuring 148 Marla under the head of inheritance, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi has used it as modus operandi to hide consideration amount and future acquisition of property”, the petition contended.

The draft said that these concealments could not be termed as bona fide mistakes, mathematical error or even clerical mistake in preparing and filing the nomination papers. Rather, these were deliberate, unambiguous, unqualified and specific and conscious misstatement of material fact for ulterior motive of hiding the sale consideration and to use this for future purchases.

The petition also contended that it was an established principle of law that once a person filed a declaration, declaring that he fulfilled the conditions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and he undertook that the statement was correct and if such declaration was turned out to be incorrect, then his nomination papers were liable to be rejected.

“It is a settled law as laid down by the Superior Court that a candidate must provide crystal clear statement in his nomination papers; and by making a false statement in material particulars vis-a-vis the manner and mode in which the land measuring 80 Kanal 04 Marla as well as the House measuring 148 Marla at Zaman Park, have been acquired, Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, has deliberately committed a corrupt practice,” it continued.

“By making false Declarations under solemn affirmation as part of his Nomination Papers, and submitting a false Affidavit pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, Mr. Imran Khan Niazi is not honest and Ameen and thus is not qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament because he could not be termed as righteous and honest person under the provisions of the Elections Act, 2017 and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.”

Can RO disqualify candidate for life

In August 2020, Supreme Court had declared that a returning officer (RO) – an official responsible for overseeing elections in one or more constituencies – could not disqualify a lawmaker for lifetime under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

“Since the forum of the returning officer lacks the attributes of a court of law therefore the electoral disqualification imposed on the review petition under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution ceased to be effective after the 18th Amendment,” said an 8-page judgment authored by Justice Umar Ata Bandial.
In October 2018, the apex court in Khawaja Asif case finally laid down an ‘objective criterion’ to test the honesty of a lawmaker by declaring that the Article 62(1)(f) could not be applied to every omission or non-disclosure of assets.

Later, the court set aside the lifetime disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Balochistan chief Yar Muhammad Rind in the fake degree case, declaring that such disqualifications must be based on oral or documentary evidences and not presumptions.

The Supreme Court judgment in Khawaja Asif case held that mere omission to list an asset could not be labelled as dishonesty unless some wrongdoing was associated with its acquisition or retention, which had duly established in the judicial proceedings.

In May last year,  the apex court reiterated that it was now a well-settled principle that every non-disclosure or misdeclaration would not be sufficient enough to permanently disqualify a member of parliament or a candidate under the Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

“The purpose and intention needs to be seen behind the non-disclosure or misdeclaration. The returned candidate would be disqualified only when if he/she has dishonestly acquired assets and is hiding them to derive certain benefits,” said an 11-page judgment authored by Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.

The verdict was issued on a petition filed by a politician, Shamona Badshah Qaisarani, who was disqualified for lifetime over non-disclosure of her agricultural property inherited from her parents in the nomination papers. “If the non-disclosure or misdeclaration is such that it gives an illegal advantage to a candidate, then it would lead to termination of his candidature,” the judgment added.