ISLAMABAD - The axe of Article 62(1)f has swung again, this time claiming the parliamentary life of foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif.
The PML-N stalwart was disqualified for life from holding any public office, by a three-member bench of the Islamabad High Court on Thursday, for hiding his foreign employment during his nomination for the last election.
The aforesaid constitutional weapon has already devastated the political careers of two key players – former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and PTI General Secretary Jehangir Tareen.
The outing of Asif from the electoral race only months before the general elections is definitely another major blow to the besieged ruling party.
Hailing from Sialkot, Khawaja Asif had earlier served as minister of defence as well as water and power. He won all the five elections he contested for the lower house from 1993 to 2013.
The court said it was punishing the minister with a “heavy heart”. When political forces fail to settle disputes at political forums and bring those the courts then it has “consequences”, the court added.
The disqualification came on a petition moved by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Usman Dar, who lost election to Asif in 2013. Dar maintained that Asif did not disclose his UAE iqama (work permit) and employment while submitting nomination papers for the general elections.
The bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani announced the judgment reserved on April 10.
The court said Khawaja Asif had been proven dishonest because he did not fulfil the constitutional requirements which bind a public office holder to disclose all assets and sources of income.
The 35-page verdict read: “We declare that the respondent was not qualified to contest the general election of 2013 from NA-110 as he did not fulfil the conditions described under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, read with section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
“The registrar of this court is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the election commission for de-notifying the respondent as Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. A copy is also directed to be sent to the Speaker of National Assembly of Pakistan for information.”
Hours later, the election commission issued a notification of Asif’s disqualification as parliament member.
The outgoing lawmaker however vowed to challenge the IHC decision in the apex court.
Reaction to verdict
The IHC ruling is the latest in a series of court decisions that have gone against the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz.
Last July, its leader Nawaz Sharif was ousted from the premiership by the Supreme Court over graft allegations and then barred from politics for life by another decision earlier this month.
The ousted prime minister and his supporters have been suggesting that they are victims of a conspiracy driven by the military to reduce their power.
Khawaja Asif - considered a close Sharif aide - is widely seen as an outspoken critic of military interference in country’s politics.
Following Thursday’s IHC decision, Nawaz Sharif lambasted the courts and what he called the persecution of the country’s politicians by the military.
The ruling against Asif comes months ahead of expected general elections, which will pit the PML-N against its main rival PTI, led by former cricket star Imran Khan.
The PTI praised Asif’s ousting, boasting the verdict would energise its ranks ahead of a rally over the weekend in Lahore that was set to highlight alleged corruption within the PML-N ranks.
Despite several rulings against the ruling party it has won a string of recent by-elections, proving it will likely remain a force in the next polls.
“Remember: the people will now vote even for Khawaja Asif’s shadow,” Maryam Nawaz Sharif, the daughter of former prime minister, wrote on Twitter, calling the proceedings a “fixed match”.
‘Unpleasant duty’
At the end of the verdict, the larger bench observed that it was not a “pleasant duty” for any court to be called upon for judicial review which may result in disqualification of an elected leader.
It quoted ex-CJP Hamood-ur-Rehman, in State vs Zia-ur-Rehman case [PLD 1973 SC 49], saying that “while exercising the power of judicial review the judiciary claims no supremacy over the organs and that it is a duty assigned to the courts to see that the constitution prevails”.
The IHC bench also referred to a seven-judge bench judgment, in the case titled ‘Ishaq Khan Khakwani and others v Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others’, wherein it was held that “thus the consistent view of the courts has been that if the determination of any question raised before the court requires interpretation or application of any provision of the constitution, the court is obliged to adjudicate upon the same notwithstanding that the action impugned or the questions raised has political overtones”.
The IHC verdict said that when political forces, instead of settling disputes at the political forums particularly the parliament, resort to the courts, it has consequences not only for the institutions but also for the litigant public.
This conduct of political forces lowers public confidence in the legislature and also exposes the institution of the judiciary to the controversies of adversarial politics.
It maintained that “the political forces are expected to settle their grievances before the political forums rather than taking the precious time of the bona fide litigants awaiting justice to be dispensed”. “Parliament is a symbol of unity of the federation and the people’s will. Parliament deserves the utmost respect and its prestige and public confidence depends on the conduct of its members who represent the actual stakeholders, the people of Pakistan. It would have been appropriate if the political party to which the petitioner belongs had raised the issue at hand in the Parliament before invoking the jurisdiction of this court.”
“It is ironic that Pakistan is amongst the few countries where a formal code of ethics and conduct for Members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and the Cabinet has not been prescribed so as to avoid situations such as have been observed in the facts and circumstances of the instant petition. We have handed down this judgment with a heavy heart not only because a seasoned and accomplished political figure stands disqualified but more so because the dreams and aspirations of 342,125 registered voters have suffered a setback,” said the judgment.
The verdict said that the bench observed that “the respondent had taken the stance that the employment contracts had been executed merely to fulfill the requirements laws in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).”
“In this regard, a certificate, dated 12.04.2018, executed by the managing director of the company, has also been placed on record…The respondent, by taking this stance, has further complicated matters for himself,” noted the verdict.
“In other words, the respondent has taken a stance which tantamounts to acknowledging that he had executed a false contract with the intent of deceiving the laws of another sovereign State,” noted the verdict.
“The certificate, dated 12-04-2018, issued by the company and the stance taken by the respondent to the effect that the employment contracts and the contents thereof were false explains withholding of this vital information while submitting the nomination paper,” said the verdict. It also noted that how Asif failed to declare an account with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi in his nomination papers.
In the petition, PTI leader Dar had contended that Asif had concealed the facts that he was an iqama holder, a legal adviser of a company in the UAE and his new labour card was issued on June 29, 2017.
Dar had requested the court to initiate quo-warranto inquisitorial proceedings in this regard requiring the respondent to explain that under what authority of law he was holding the public office.
In his petition, Dar had said Asif was a full-time employee of an Abu-Dhabi based company Int Mech & Elec Co LLC (IMECL) and continues to be its employee since July 2, 2011.
The petitioner had said that against his employment, Asif was entitled to receive 35,000 UAE Dirham as salary and 15,000 AED as monthly allowances that were being received by him as an MNA as well as foreign minister of the country.
He had contended that Asif never disclosed this source of income in Pakistan and he was no more ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’.
He had contended that Asif had also been an ‘iqama’ holder from May 9, 2007, till May 8, 2010. The UAE ministry of labour also issued ‘labour card’ to Asif on June 29, 2017, whose validity is till June 28, 2019. In his nomination papers for 2013 general election, Asif mentioned his occupation as a businessman while the employment contract revealed another story, the petition had said.
The petitioner had taken the stance that the respondent intentionally concealed this information from the public, from the federal board of revenue in his tax returns and in violation of Representation of People Act (ROPA) 1976.
Foreign minister disqualified for life