ahlam1399
07-29-2017, 03:23 PM
https://www.thenews.com.pk/assets/uploads/akhbar/2017-07-29/l_219833_054910_print.jpg Comment
ISLAMABAD: The July 28, 2017 judgment, which has disqualified yet a**ther prime minister, was based on one point that though Nawaz Sharif was **t receiving salary from UAE-based firm, mere mention of salary on appointment letter makes it a “receivable”, thus an asset, which was **t declared so he is **t Sadiq and Ameen and hence disqualified.
The premier is disqualified by using article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, which means life-time disqualification.
All financial experts agree that there is ** need of any declaration if there are ** financial benefits and most importantly ** question even arises if there is a written declaration of taking ** financial benefit on this count. In its judgment, the apex court itself declared that there is ** mention of definition of “asset” in the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) and thus definition of ‘asset’ was understood from different dictionaries.
It is important that in all the cases of mis-declaration of assets in recent past, the legislators were de-seated under section 12 and 99 of ROPA by the Supreme Court and they were allowed to re-contest the elections though there was clear **n-declaration of k**wn assets and accused even admitted having those undeclared assets in courts. In **ne of these cases, article 62(1) (f) was invoked and **ne of them was declared as **t being ‘sadiq and ameen’. Declaring any legislator being **t ‘sadiq and ameen’ means disqualification for lifetime. Supreme Court had de-seated legislators in cases of mis-declaration of assets and they were free to re-contest elections despite the fact they actually failed to declare some assets, a fact which was also proved in court of law. However, in case of former Prime Minister Nawaz, there was ** asset which was **t declared and apex court also admitted the position that salary was **t taken but it declared that as appointment letter mentions salary, so even un-withdrawn salary becomes receivable, hence an asset which was **t declared. Usually it is **t perceived that a person declaring tens of millions of money in his declaration, will ever try to hide a few lakh rupees.
According to April 20 judgment **te by Ho**urable Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, article 62(1)(f) could **t be allowed to be used as a tool for political engineering by the Supreme Court, **r should it arrogate to itself the power to vet candidates on moral grounds. “Under our constitutional dispensation, Pakistan is to be governed by the representatives chosen by the people and **t chosen by any institution or a few individuals,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had written in his **te in the April 20 judgment.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in the majority judgment of April 20 held that the court did **t feel inclined to arrogate to itself power or exercise a jurisdiction which had **t been conferred on it by any act of parliament or even by Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Both the respected judges in their April 20 judgment were of the view that article 62 and 63 can**t be invoked while exercising the jurisdiction under article 184(3) of the constitution.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/rFNRWog6SwE
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/rFNRWog6SwE/219833-In-recent-past-SC-allowed-all-those-de-seated-to-re-contest-polls)
ISLAMABAD: The July 28, 2017 judgment, which has disqualified yet a**ther prime minister, was based on one point that though Nawaz Sharif was **t receiving salary from UAE-based firm, mere mention of salary on appointment letter makes it a “receivable”, thus an asset, which was **t declared so he is **t Sadiq and Ameen and hence disqualified.
The premier is disqualified by using article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, which means life-time disqualification.
All financial experts agree that there is ** need of any declaration if there are ** financial benefits and most importantly ** question even arises if there is a written declaration of taking ** financial benefit on this count. In its judgment, the apex court itself declared that there is ** mention of definition of “asset” in the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA) and thus definition of ‘asset’ was understood from different dictionaries.
It is important that in all the cases of mis-declaration of assets in recent past, the legislators were de-seated under section 12 and 99 of ROPA by the Supreme Court and they were allowed to re-contest the elections though there was clear **n-declaration of k**wn assets and accused even admitted having those undeclared assets in courts. In **ne of these cases, article 62(1) (f) was invoked and **ne of them was declared as **t being ‘sadiq and ameen’. Declaring any legislator being **t ‘sadiq and ameen’ means disqualification for lifetime. Supreme Court had de-seated legislators in cases of mis-declaration of assets and they were free to re-contest elections despite the fact they actually failed to declare some assets, a fact which was also proved in court of law. However, in case of former Prime Minister Nawaz, there was ** asset which was **t declared and apex court also admitted the position that salary was **t taken but it declared that as appointment letter mentions salary, so even un-withdrawn salary becomes receivable, hence an asset which was **t declared. Usually it is **t perceived that a person declaring tens of millions of money in his declaration, will ever try to hide a few lakh rupees.
According to April 20 judgment **te by Ho**urable Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, article 62(1)(f) could **t be allowed to be used as a tool for political engineering by the Supreme Court, **r should it arrogate to itself the power to vet candidates on moral grounds. “Under our constitutional dispensation, Pakistan is to be governed by the representatives chosen by the people and **t chosen by any institution or a few individuals,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed had written in his **te in the April 20 judgment.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in the majority judgment of April 20 held that the court did **t feel inclined to arrogate to itself power or exercise a jurisdiction which had **t been conferred on it by any act of parliament or even by Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Both the respected judges in their April 20 judgment were of the view that article 62 and 63 can**t be invoked while exercising the jurisdiction under article 184(3) of the constitution.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/rFNRWog6SwE
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/rFNRWog6SwE/219833-In-recent-past-SC-allowed-all-those-de-seated-to-re-contest-polls)