Supreme Court nullifies Khawaja Asif’s lifetime disqualification by IHC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court nullified on Friday the lifetime disqualification of the former foreign minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial announced the verdict. The bench observed that the details of the verdict will be shared soon. 

Khawaja Asif is now eligible to contest in upcoming elections, which are scheduled to be held on July 25. 

The bench, which also comprises Justices Faisal Arab and Sajjad Ali Shah, had earlier reserved its decision on the appeal filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz stalwart challenging his April 27 lifetime disqualification by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Asif had filed the appeal on May 2. 

During the case proceedings, Advocate Sikander Bashir Mohmand, representing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Mohammad Usman Dar, remarked that a record of Asif's stint in the federal cabinet has been submitted to the court.

Dar had initially filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court seeking disqualification of Asif over failure to declare his foreign employment in the nomination papers for 2013 general elections. 

“Asif's oath should be reviewed,” the legal counsel said, adding that Asif had taken the oath to never think about his personal benefit. 

“He was working as an employee in a foreign country while serving as a minister in Pakistan,” Advocate Mohmand added.

Khawaja Asif's legal counsel had argued that he did not mention foreign accounts on nomination papers unintentionally. 

He also said that he had declared his bank accounts details and iqama (work permit) before the writ was submitted by Usman Dar. 

‘Thankful to judiciary’

Following the decision, Khawaja Asif said Allah had bestowed his mercy upon him.

“I want to thank the judiciary,” Asif further tweeted. 

‘We will compete in Sialkot now’

Reacting to the verdict, Dar congratulated Khawaja Asif for becoming eligible to contest general elections. “We will compete in the court of people in Sialkot now. There will be a tough competition in Sialkot.”

While speaking to media outside the Supreme Court, he remarked that he has a message for former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz. “Maryam and Nawaz may keep saying whatever they want to the court but it is the court which has deemed their worker to be eligible’. 

‘Unfair to destroy anyone’s career’

During the hearing on Thursday, the Supreme Court had observed that it would unfair to destroy the career of a parliamentarian because he failed to quantify his assets, though he disclosed their source under the relevant law.

Justice Umer Ata Bandial, while heading the bench, had observed that disclosing foreign salary by the petitioner (Khawaja Asif) is sufficient, adding that it was not fair to destroy anyone’s career.

The court questioned as to whether Khawaja Asif had disclosed in his nomination papers, a salary of AED9000. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Usman Dar, responded that he did mention AED9000 but mentioned zero in next box of the nomination paper

Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that it would be examined as to whether facts were mentioned in the nomination papers or not.

The court, however, observed that it would not go into the tax returns as it is the job of tax authorities to impose a penalty on it.

Justice Umer Ata Bandial remarked that the issue before the court pertained to disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).

Asif’s disqualification

On April 27, Asif was disqualified by the IHC under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution for failing to disclose his employment in a UAE company and the monthly salary he was receiving.

The court announced its verdict on a petition stating that Asif did not mention his foreign employment in his nomination papers.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Athar Minallah had announced the verdict and ruled that Asif is not 'honest' and 'truthful' as per the Constitution.

The three bench members unanimously ruled that Asif was not qualified to contest the 2013 general election from NA-110 as he did not fulfill the conditions described under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, read with Section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of People Act 1976.