ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that it was not only seeing declaration or misdeclaration of assets, but also examining whether the appellant, former foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, was telling lie a or not.
A three-member apex court bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah observed this while hearing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senior leader Khawaja Asif’s appeal against the Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict.
On May 2, 2018, Kh Asif had filed an appeal in the apex court against the IHC judgement. The high court on April 26, 2018 disqualified Kh Asif for life under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution for not disclosing his employment in a UAE company as an occupation as well as the monthly salary he was drawing.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Usman Dar had sought disqualification of Kh Asif.
During Thursday’s hearing, the court raised questions whether by not disclosing the source of income, a parliamentarian could be disqualified for life under Article 62(1)(f) of constitution.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that the case before them was not under Article 184(3) of the constitution, but they were hearing the appeal against the IHC judgement, which was handed down on a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the constitution.
“Was it not enough that the appellant declared his foreign salary in his nomination papers,” he asked, adding they did not want to destroy anyone’s career only on the basis of presumptions. Justice Faisal Arab said that Kh Asif received money from abroad, adding, “We don’t want to go into nitty gritty.”
Sikandar Bashir, the counsel for PTI leader Usman Dar contended that though Kh Asif had signed the contract with the foreign company, which was not mentioned in his nomination papers. The counsel contended that Kh Asif received Rs 34 million under the head of foreign remittances, but did not disclose the source. Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that Kh Asif earned this money from his business. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah noted that the former foreign minister received Rs 34 million, but he did he not disclose his business.
Sikandar stated that Kh Asif was not disclosing about his business as he was getting money from his contract. Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that Kh Asif in his tax return had professed of his business but did not disclose that he had foreign employment.
He noted that in the Income Tax law it was not mandatory to disclose foreign income, adding there were loopholes in the tax law. He said it had been exempted intentionally so that the rich people could not evade taxes.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said: “He (ex-minister) can be discharged but cannot be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution. However, if he has not paid the tax then it is a separate issue.”
Sikandar argued that a person had accrued salary but has not disclosed it in the tax returns. Justice Umar Ata Bandial stated that they were not looking into disputed facts in the quo qarranto proceedings.
Sikandar Bashir further argued that as per the contract Kh Asif was getting 9,000 dirham per month as salary, but he did not disclose this for one year. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Friday), directing the parties to advance their final arguments.
Published in Daily Times, June 1st 2018.
.jpg)
