LAHORE: A Lahore High Court full bench on Friday partly heard arguments of PTI founding chairman Imran Khan’s counsel on a petition challenging his disqualification in Toshakhana case and subsequent de-seating from NA-95, Mianwali.
PTI Senator Barrister Ali Zafar resumed his arguments on behalf of the former prime minister, saying his client had duly filed income tax statements and declared all assets including proceeds of sales of any articles sold to fulfill the requirements under section 137 of the Elections Act, 2017.
He argued that if somebody wants to file a complaint against the returns filed by any parliamentarian, the complaint can only be filed within 120 days. However, in the case of Imran Khan, no such objection was ever raised by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) within the stipulated period even to date.
Barrister Zafar said in the absence of such a complaint, after expiry of 120 days period, the issue had become a past and closed transaction.
He pointed out that a reference was moved by the then-National Assembly speaker alleging that the petitioner concealed gifts purchased from Toshakhana in 2018-19, and, therefore, the ECP should disqualify him under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
He argued that only a court of law can disqualify a parliamentarian under article 62 (1)(f). He stated that no such declaration of a court of law was available with the NA speaker or the ECP.
The counsel said the ECP was not a court of law, therefore, was incompetent to make a declaration under article 62 (1)(f). Therefore, he argued that the action of the then-NA speaker of sending the reference to the ECP was unconstitutional. Barrister Zafar apprised the bench that the ECP was alleging that any misdeclaration amounts to disqualification. He was of the view that disqualification under article 62 (1)(f) too must exist at the time the reference is filed by an assembly speaker.
“A pre-reference disqualification is a prerequisite to enable the National Assembly speaker to send a reference under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution,” the counsel explained.
The counsel was still arguing the case when the bench adjourned the hearing due to paucity of time. The next date of hearing will be fixed later by the registrar office.
Published in Dawn, September 21st, 2024
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.