KARACHI - The Sindh High Court (SHC) will hear identical petitions against Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Faryal Talpur and others for allegedly holding iqama (work permit) on June12.
A division bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar heard initial arguments from the petitioners’ counsels, who moved to the high court seeking to restrain former PPP law makers from contesting general elections of 2018.
Justice Muhammad Ali asked the petitioner that what the status of the case is after the verdict of Khawaja Asif case. He replied that Khawaja Asif's nomination paper was challenged, but our case is different it is about iqama.
The PPP former law makers did not mentioned their iqama in the Election Commission of Pakistan. The court has issued notices to the advocate general and others seeking arguments in the view of the decisions of Rehman Malik case and Khawaja Asif case. The court asked the lawyers to prepare a discussion in the view of the verdicts of the Supreme Court.
As many as five petitions were moved against the PPP former law makers. Moazzam Abbasi has filed a plea seeking the disqualification of Faryal Talpur for allegedly holding iqama.
He submitted that Faryal Talpur had formed a company in 2002 in Dubai which was made in Talpur’s daughter Sahibzadi Ayesha’s name. He alleged that the transfer of money to Dubai was hidden from the election commission.
Similarly, Mumtaz Ali Chandio moved a petition seeking disqualification of Ghaibi Nawab Sardar Khan Chandio, PPP MPA, elected from District Qambar Shehzadkot in 2013. The petitioner submitted that Khan is holding an iqama of UAE, but did not mention it to the election commission.
Other identical petitions were filed by three former PPP ministers Sohail Anwar Siyal, Ministers, Nasir Shah, Manzoor Wasan. The petitioners pleaded the court to disqualify the PPP lawmakers for no declaring their Iqama.
They also prayed to restrain them from contesting election and also declare them as disqualify for holding any public office.
The petitioners stated that it is tantamount to violation of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution read with Sections 99(I)(f) of the Representation of People Act 1976.
