Khawaja Asif disqualified for life by Islamabad High Court

ISLAMABAD: In another blow for the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Islamabad High Court on Thursday disqualified Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif under Article 62 (i) (f) of the Constitution for holding an iqama (work permit) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The three-member bench, announcing the verdict, stated that Asif was not qualified to contest polls in 2013. The registrar was also directed to send a copy of the judgement to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the speaker of the national assembly to denotify Asif as member parliament.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) supporters started chanting slogans of “Go Nawaz Go” outside the court after the announcement of the verdict.

Meanwhile, Asif announced that he will challenge the high court verdict disqualifying him for life. He added that he had never concealed his foreign work permit

The verdict

The bench has observed that the respondent had taken the stance that the employment contracts had been executed merely to fulfil the requirements of the laws of the United Arab Emirates. “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.”

“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,” it added.

However, the court has allowed for the verdict to be challenged. Citing the law, the IHC judgment observes that “a disqualification can be challenged before a High Court under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) if it has been overlooked, illegally condoned or went unquestioned on the nomination day or before the election tribunal.”

“This jurisdiction can be exercised if the facts can be determined without recording of evidence and when intricate disputed questions are not involved. It is for this reason that we have solely considered those facts and events which were admitted before us,” further read the verdict.

The verdict also mentioned that Asif had not declared a bank account maintained with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi in the statement of assets and liabilities attached to his nomination paper.

The IHC however, stated that the verdict was passed with a heavy heart. “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.”

“When political forces, instead of settling disputes at the political forums, particularly the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) resort to the Courts, it has consequences not only for the institutions but the litigant public as well,” the verdict observed.

“This conduct of political forces lowers public confidence in the legislature on the one hand and on the other hand exposes the institution of the judiciary to the controversies of adversarial politics.”

Reiterating that the political forces were “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”, the judgment stressed the importance of the parliament. “Parliament is a symbol of unity of the Federation and the peoples’ will,” it said.

“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,” added the IHC verdict.

Case history

On April 10, a larger bench of the high court had reserved judgment on a petition by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Usman Dar. The larger bench, comprising Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, had directed the parties to submit written arguments.

The petitioner, Usman Dar, who had contested against Asif during 2013 general elections in the NA-110 constituency from PTI’s platform, had argued that Asif hid the fact of holding an Iqama, or a foreign work permit, in his nomination papers. Dar, through his counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, nominated Asif, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the National Assembly secretary as respondents and sought relief under Article199(1)(b)(ii) read with Article 63(1)(f).

Earlier, Mohmand had argued before another larger bench that Asif in his nomination papers mentioned himself as a businessman whereas his Abu Dhabi Iqama proved that he was and still is an employee of a company in a different capacity.

The prosecution counsel’s claimed that the foreign minister was not entitled to holding the office of an MNA or that of a federal minister under the ‘Unlimited Term Employment Contract’ between him and the International Mechanical and Electrical Company (IMECL) – a limited liability company located in Abu Dhabi and existing under UAE laws.

He said Asif “has been continuously employed as a full time, salaried employee of IMECL since at least 2-7-2011” and held various positions, including that of ‘legal adviser’ and ‘special adviser’.
The counsel had also said Asif was to receive a monthly basic salary of AED35,000 along with a monthly allowance of AED15,000, making an aggregate payment of AED50,000 per month.

In his reply earlier submitted before the previous larger bench, Asif said the petitioner had relied upon the documents appended by him along with his nomination papers prior to the 2013 elections.

The counsel for Asif had said Dar was trying to achieve his mala fide objectives and seeking re-adjudication of the election dispute indirectly by filing the present petition which is contrary to the principle of law that says “what cannot be achieved directly cannot be achieved indirectly”.

In his reply, Asif said had admitted being employed as a legal advisor as stated in the employment form, however, he stressed that the business relationship between the company and the respondent was in accordance with the law and did not relate to the national security or any matter which may be in conflict with the official functions being carried out by the respondent being the foreign minister.

He had further said there was no reason for the petitioner to object to the working relationship of Asif with the company in the UAE without showing a violation of any express provision of law. He added that remuneration fee received by Asif had been duly declared in his nomination form for the election held in May 2013.

Asif’s counsel had stated that the payment of AED35,000 plus AED15,000 allowances pertain to the year 2015 onward and could not be mentioned in the nomination form of 2013. He reiterated that payments made were duly accounted-for in the income tax returns and the law of the land was being followed.

Asif’s counsel averred that assertion being peddled by Dar that Asif was a full-time employee of IMECL is based on a misconception of facts.

Source: Express Tribune