LAHORE: Friday was termed as a big day in the political history of the country, as Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan was given a clean chit by the Supreme Court, the party’s secretary general Jahangir Tareen was disqualified for life, while a plea for reopening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case against the Sharifs was dismissed.
Regarding Imran's exoneration in the offshore company Niazi Services Limited case, the anchorperson asked his guests in the Geo News programme ‘Naya Pakistan Talat Hussain Ke Saath’ that the court said in its verdict that the respondent was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle, and its sale as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets and liabilities, filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
However, renowned lawyer Salman Akram Raja said that there was adifference in these two assertions. The court held that as shares of the company were in the names of Imran'ssisters, therefore, their disclosure was not mandatory.
However, the judges said in the verdict that disclosure of the flat was necessary, as the flat was purchased with shares; it was owned by the company but, in fact, Imran was its real and beneficial owner. The verdict said that benefiting from the amnesty announced in theyear 2000, Imran declared it as an asset in the year 2002 elections.
Raja said that apparently, there appeared different standards in Nawaz Sharif and Imran's disqualification cases. The verdict said that since 1983, Imran had been thebeneficial owner of the London flat. For the first time, Imran declared it as his asset in the 2002 general election, after an amnesty was announced for the foreign properties owners in the year 2000, he did not declare the flat in his nomination papers in 1997 elections.
Raja said there seemed a different criterion. “Before I talk about Niazi Services shares, one thing is clear that this verdict acknowledges that Khan Sahib owns these flats since 1983,” the lawyer said.
He showed their ownership in 2000 under an amnesty scheme and mentioned them for the first time in his nomination papers for the 2002 elections. These flats were not disclosed in the 1997 elections. The ground on which Nawaz Sharif was disqualified was that he did not disclose the income or salary, though he did not receive it, in his tax returns and nomination papers in 2013.
Not showing assets in nomination papers has already been declared a hard crime in the Panama verdict. As regards the Mayfair or Nights Burj flats, they should, of course, be of some value. They were not disclosed in 1997 and the judgment remained silent on them.
Talat Hussain said that they (judges) were saying that the “respondent was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle and its sale as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets, liabilities filed with the ECP”.
Hussain asked former attorney general Irfan Qadirabout the fact that Imran said he founded Niazi Services Limited. The Supreme Court said as he was not a shareholder, there was no obligation on him to declare them.
Qadir said he believed there seemed no harmony among these three verdicts. Since 2009, not double but multiple standards seem to be dominating all the verdicts. “It is for this very reason that I repeatedly said that it was need of the hour to clear the mess developed by carelessly employing the jurisdiction of Article 184/3. All the old and wrong decisions should have been revisited.”
He asked Raja and lawyer Kamran Murtaza to check that Article 2 and 83 of the Constitution said whenever there was a question of a parliamentarian’s disqualification, that would be dealt with by the ECP.
"There is no mention of the Supreme Court. How did the apex court itself decide to hear these cases. If a person files a petition against an MP or 100 MPs in the days to come, all will have to explain their assets in the court," he added.
The lawyer said Nawaz was disqualified as he did not declare his salary, which he did not receive from his son’s company, in his assets details during the 2013 elections. Under the Panama Papers case, non-declaration of an asset had been ruled a big crime.
Qadir said in reply to a question that the Supreme Court bench gave an impression in the two judgments that the Panama Papers case verdict was not binding on them. Nawaz was disqualified on a hyper technicality and that too after a legal split. Nawaz was not disqualified for having assets beyond his known sources of income, but his failure to declare his assets’ details with mathematical exactitude. He said there was no constitutional or legal binding on any election candidate to declare their assets with details with mathematical exactitude. He said Imran's exoneration was not less than a miracle. In one case, being a beneficial owner causes disqualification of persons, and in the other case it is declared ‘not a big deal’, he added.
Murtaza, who is a former president of Supreme Court Bar Association, said he did not agree with the current verdict, like the previous judgment.
He said he did not approve of the jurisprudence developed since July 2017, rather from the point when the apex court started entertaining the petitions.
Earlier, Nawaz was disqualified and now Tareen has been sent packing by the Supreme Court.
Now, a large number of people would file petitions against politicians, and they would keep appearing in the courts throughout their lives.
Senior journalist Iftikhar Ahmad said that the issue of corruption had not been addressed by the court, and even Imran's case had been referred to the ECP for further proceedings. He said as the Parliament and state institutions including National Accountability Bureau (NAB) failed to perform their duties effectively, therefore the Supreme Court had to use its jurisprudence.
Speaking in the programme, senior lawyer Awais Ahmad said democracy is an attitude, but this is not actualised when the Parliament stops doing what it is supposed to do.
He said the policies about the common man are given attention in the Parliament and a stage has come where the social contract appears to be failing.
In his concluding remarks, Hussain said that apparently, the verdicts in Hudabiya and Tareen cases would benefit Punjab Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif.