ISLAMABAD: As the hearing of Panamagate case resumed on Friday, the counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif argued while quoting articles 62 and 63 of the constitution that the evidence presented by petitioners so far did not fulfil the requirements for the disqu
alification of his client.
During the course of hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan contending that his client could not be disqualified without declaration of court through appropriate remedy. He cited different cases pertaining to disqu
alification and argued that, besides appropriate remedy, his client could a
lso not be disqualified within the purview of Article 62.
A five-judge larger bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, is hearing the Panamagate case.
Building his arguments, Makhdoom contended that the top court in its judgement of 2014 had already declared that the terms sadiq and ameen were feast of obscurity.
He particularly focused on the judgement of the top court that came in 2014 over a petition of Pa
kistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Ishaq Khan Khakwani.
Khakwani had sought issuance of declaration by the top court, contending that the premier was not an honest person within the purview of Article 62(1)(f) as he had made a statement in parliament in 2014 that was not factually correct.
He had contended that the PM had falsely stated in the Lower House that he had not asked then army chief General (r) Raheel Sharif to act as a mediator and guarantor between the federal government and PTI Chairman Imran Khan and Pa
kistan Awami Tehreek chief Dr Tahirul Qadri for ending the political deadlock during the 2014 sit-in.
Citing the judgement issued by a seven-judge larger bench over the matter, Makhdoom argued that the top court in the said ruling had declared Article 62(1)(f) a nightmare. Whether an elected prime minister could be disqualified on such an article, he argued, adding that the current head of the larger bench – Justice Asif Saeed Khosa – had made observations in Khakwani’s case.
According to Article 62(1)(f), a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of parliament unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-pro
fligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law.
Makhdoom said that the National Assembly speaker had rejected the reference against the premier because of absence of court declaration, adding that the top court also had approved the Lahore High Court’s order whereby it had maintained t
he speaker’s decision and observed that the decision was in accordance with the law.
He argued that the top court had ruled that the background and contents of the statement both needed to be examined for disqu
alification of a member.
He contended that the court declaration was required for the disqu
alification, adding that both disqu
alification and conviction through court declaration could not be imposed all together. “Disqu
alification in this situation cannot happen,” the counsel said.
He said that nomination papers of General (r) Pervez Musharraf were rejected on the same grounds.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan told Makhdoom that a court declaration was present against him in the judgement over a case filed by the Sindh High Court Bar Association.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that the court had declared in its ruling that Musharraf had dishonoured his oath.
Meanwhile, Shahid Hamid, the counsel for PM’s son-in-law Captain (r) Safdar and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, submitted replies on behalf of his clients.
The PM’s son-in-law stated that he had been paying taxes from the day he was an army officer, while Dar submitted that the Lahore High Court had quashed all the allegations against him regarding confessional statements.
