“Panama Ka Hungama” SC ousts PM as he found guilty to mislead the PANAMA case

Like Tweet Pin it Share Share Email

Today’s Final knock out, not only shocked entire the world but also, to the people of Pakistan, as no such decision in history of Court has been made. PM failed to justify prerequisite of the Panama Papers and finally accused of being guilty and misleading JIT and SC.

"Panama Ka Hungama" SC ousts PM as he found guilty to mislead the PANAMA case
“Panama Ka Hungama” SC ousts PM as he found guilty to mislead the PANAMA case

After JIT brief inquiry about the case made SC must defensive to sent ruling party home, some bold statements from PLMN leaders caused a major reason of disqualification too however it was Iqama that brought Nawaz Sharif down from PM House to Punjab House where his younger brother “Shahbaz Sharif” is ready to welcome him.

Khawaja Harris Ahmed, the PM counsel, failed to carry out accomplice case filed against PM. The purpose of the arrangement, argued the counsel, was solely to secure an iqama — a UAE work visa — which would allow the prime minister easy access to the Gulf state “in his years in exile”.

Trending Topics

“The next question emerging for the consideration of this Court is whether respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif] as a Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE is entitled to salaries and whether the salaries if not withdrawn being receivable as such constitute assets which require disclosure in terms of Section 12(2) of the Representation of the People Act (ROPA), 1976 and whether his failure to disclose them would entail his disqualification?” the court wrote in its judgement, issued Friday.

Since the word ‘asset’ was not defined in the ROPA, the court relied on Black’s Law Dictionary to ascertain its meaning, finding that it includes:

(i) something physical such as cash, machinery, inventory, land and building

(ii) an enforceable claim against others such as accounts receivable

(iii) rights such as copyright, patent trademark etc

(iv) an assumption such as goodwill

“The definition of the word ‘receivable’ as used in the above mentioned definition as given in the Black’s Law Dictionary is also relevant, which means […] ‘any collectible whether or not it is currently due’,” the court continued.

The Supreme Court also looked up the word ‘receivable’ in the Business Dictionary, finding that it is an:

“Accounting term for amount due from a customer, employee, supplier (as a rebate or refund) or any other party. Receivables are classified as accounts receivable, notes receivable etc and represent an asset of the firm.”

Sharif’s fate was thus sealed.

“The definitions reproduced above leave no doubt that a salary not withdrawn would nevertheless be receivable and as such would constitute an asset for all legal and practical purposes,” the court observed.

When it is an asset for all legal and practical purposes, it was required to be disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his nomination papers in terms of Section 12(2) of the ROPA .”

The court also noted that the counsel for Sharif himself had affirmed that the prime minister did indeed acquire an iqama, that he was a chairman of the board of Capital FZE and that he was entitled to a salary — even though he insisted that the salary was never withdrawn.

“It has not been denied that respondent No. 1 being Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE was entitled to salary, therefore, the statement that he did not withdraw the salary would not prevent the un-withdrawn salary from being receivable, hence [making it] an asset,” the court reasoned.

The court concluded that Nawaz Sharif had been ‘dishonest’ by not declaring this receivable salary in his nomination papers for the 2013 election, as required under Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA.

Where respondent No. 1 did not disclose his aforesaid assets, it would amount to furnishing a false declaration on solemn affirmation in violation of the law mentioned above, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Section 99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the court concluded. Sharif would, therefore, have to go.

Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *