LAHORE - Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz is quite jubilant over the judicial success of the party stalwart and former foreign affairs minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, although the apex court verdict is of no use for Nawaz Sharif who was also disqualified for keeping an Iqama of a Middle East country.
Former premier Nawaz Sharif has exhausted all forums of relief, so disqualification decision against him can be reversed only through the parliament, say legal experts.
The apex court had disqualified Nawaz Sharif in terms of Article 62(1) F of the Constitution and the same provision was applied to the case of Khawaja Asif by the Islamabad High Court and scrapped his National Assembly membership. Both had been hit by the constitutional requirement set for a parliamentarian, ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’, and disqualified for life to become parliamentarians.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of Khawaja Asif and set aside the high court decision. Nawaz Sharif has utilised the option of review against the Supreme Court verdict. The apex court bench has yet to announce the detailed judgment on Asif’s appeal, but it appears from the arguments that keeping an Iqama has not been held a serious offence and may be counted a part of income and the provision of ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ comes into operation when a person conceals this fact in his nomination papers and does not declare the income received on its basis.
However, question arises whether a person who holds a ministry and has taken oath of keeping interest of the country ahead of everything can sell out his time and services to another country or a company. This matter will hopefully be addressed by the apex court in its detailed judgment to justify nullification of the high court decision against Khawaja Asif. The disqualification matter, however, appears to have secured a wider, enlarged and broad interpretation of the relevant article of the Constitution, which had axed membership of Nawaz Sharif and deprived him of the prime minister’s office.
Keeping an Iqama by both has similarity, but facts and grounds in the two cases sound different. In legal procedure when a verdict becomes a precedent, it can become a means to provide relief in another case provided facts and grounds are of similar nature.
The case against Khawaja Asif still merits hearing in review of the present decision, so a chance is still available with the PTI petitioner to assail the current decision. And if moved, the review may affirm or reject this apparently fresh judicial approach.
There are some precedents about moving a reference by a party that had exhausted all judicial remedies, but was able in another case to get its previous decision set aside. However, chances appear bleak for the former prime minister for moving a reference. It may also be for the reason that the former PM is accused of concealing offshore companies of his children as revealed by the Panama leaks while Iqama concealment issue relating to him had emanated to deprive him of the NA membership. Khawaja Asif is not hit by the Panama scam as he claims to have declared his Iqama and the benefit he received through it in the nomination papers.
As such Nawaz Sharif is focusing more on public support and vote so that his party could get a clear majority in the assembly in the next elections to strike down his disqualification through legislation and he again could become a member of the parliament.
Interestingly, PTI Secretary General Jahangir Tarin was also disqualified for life for running offshore companies. But Tarin claims he never concealed the facts about the offshore companies. He has also sought a review of the disqualification verdict against him. Whether or not the court accepts his contentions that he did not conceal the facts of his companies and whatever monetary transaction was carried out through them was legitimate may also become a means of wider interpretations of the disqualification and qualification provisions of the constitution.