KHUDAYAR MOHLA

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Tuesday said the ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif never came forth with the whole truth before the court and did try to befool the people inside and outside the Parliament.

While dismissing review pleas of a Sharif family, seeking a revisit of the Panama Papers case verdict that disqualified Nawaz Sharif from holding public office as prime minister on September 15, a five-member larger bench led by Justice Sardar Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said detailed reasons of the short order would be recorded later.

Issuing a 23-page detailed verdict, authored by one of the members of the larger bench, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, the court said in detailed order in the matter, “He (Nawaz Sharif) tried to befool the people inside and outside the Parliament. He even tried to befool the court without realizing that “you can befool all the people for some of the time, some of the people all the time but you cannot befool all the people all the time.”

The court plainly said in its order that any concession at this stage or any leniency to the candidates or the person elected would be a prelude to a catastrophe in politics, which has already had enough of it. The verdict maintained that since it is already touching the extreme, extreme measures have to be taken, adding that the culture of passing the candidates by granting grace marks has not delivered the goods, it has rather corrupted the people and corrupted the system.

Giving its reasons behind dismissal of the review pleas of the Sharif family, the bench categorically said that it could not have shut eyes when an asset of the petitioner arising out of Iqama (work permit) having surfaced during the investigation of the case and admitted by him to be his own in no uncertain terms, was not found to have been disclosed in his nomination papers in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of Representation of Peoples Act (ROPA).

“Nor could have we let him get away with it simply because he happened to be the prime minister of the country. Much higher level of integrity is expected of the holder of the highest elected office of the country. But to our dismay and disappointment, the petitioner has not been fair and forthright in answering any of the queries made during the course of hearing,” stated the larger bench.

The bench said that refuge in evasive, equivocal and non-committal reply does not help always, adding if fortune has throned, crowned and sceptered him to rule the country, his conduct should be above board and impeccable.

“Whatever he (Nawaz Sharif) does or says must be res ipsa loquitur. (thing speaks for itself), resignation rather than prevarication in ambiguous terms is more honorable exit if and when anything secretly carried under the sanctimonious gown of leadership drops and gets sighted,” the judgment said.

The larger bench ruled that since the prime minister of the country is thought to be the ethos personified of the nation, he represents at national and international level, denying an asset established or defending a trust deed written in 2006 in a font becoming commercial in 2007 is below his dignity and decorum of the office he holds. Expressing a follower’s feeling about his leader, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan symbolically said in an Urdu couplet, “Don’t talk about this thing and that, just tell us why the caravan was looted - We have no complaint with the passersby, it is a question of your leadership.”

Responding to an argument of the counsel for Nawaz Sharif, the bench said that even if it is assumed that un-withdrawn salary constitutes an asset, omission to disclose it involving a violation of Sections 12 and 13 of the ROPA calls for the rejection of nomination papers or at its worst, removal of the petitioner from the public office and not his disqualification in terms of Section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is devoid of force when the petitioner deliberately concealed his assets and willfully and dishonestly made a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination papers.

“It is not something to be looked at with a casual eye and outlook. It is not only a legal duty but a qualifying test for the candidates who in the later days preside over the destiny of the people. This duty has to be performed without a taint of misrepresentation. This test has to be qualified without resorting to unfair means,” stated the detailed verdict.

Replying to an argument of Nawaz Sharif’s counsel that apex court has no jurisdiction to disqualify him under Article 184 (3), the court said there are precedents to disqualify a candidate who made a false declaration in the nomination papers in the column meant for academic qualification and in another case a candidate was disqualified in terms of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution who made a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination paper.

The detailed verdict added that Nawaz Sharif has been neck deep in business and politics ever since early 80s’ so it is unbelievable that he did not understand the simple principle of accounting that his accrued and accumulated salary of six-and-a-half-year was his asset and liability of the company he was an employee of.

“Even otherwise, this argument cannot be given much weight when it has not been pleaded by the petitioner that the omission to mention the asset was accidental, inadvertent or unintentional,” said the verdict.

The bench dispelled the argument when no material has come on the record to show any nexus between Captain (retired) Safdar and the Avenfield apartments, the direction to the NAB authorities to file a reference against him is not sustainable, saying Safdar is the spouse of Maryam Nawaz Sharif who prima facie happens to be the beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments.

The court ruled that the evidence relating to Sharif’s disqualification was undisputed, saying the Accountability Court is at liberty to consider evidence against Sharif family in accordance with law and without being influenced by the apex court observations in the matter.