One can’t be deemed dishonest without evidence: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court said Thursday only the is court mandated to give the declaration under Article 62(1)(f), observing that it was not easy to disqualify someone for life and that no one could be deemed either honest or dishonest without facts and evidence.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ayesha A Malik, heard the appeal of PTI leader Faisal Vawda, challenging his disqualification for life.

The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on February 9, 2022, had disqualified PTI learder Faisal Vawda under Article-62 (1) (f) of the Constitution for having dual citizenship. In the 27-page judgment, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) had held that Faisal Vawda had submitted a false affidavit while submitting nomination papers for the 2018 elections.

Following the judgment, the ECP had also de-notified him as a senator. He was notified as a returned member of the Senate on March 10, last year. Later on, Faisal Wada filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution for leave to appeal against the ECP order and the February 16 judgment of the Islamabad High Court.

On Thursday, Waseem Sajjad, while arguing before the court, submitted that the actual question related to the declaration for lifetime disqualification and the election commission was not the competent forum for giving such a verdict.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that only the court had the jurisdiction to give a declaration under Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution. The CJP said it was not easy to disqualify someone for life, adding that no one could be declared either honest or dishonest without examining the facts and evidence.

“The declaration of court means recording of evidence,” the chief justice remarked, adding that the apex court in its judgments had settled the criteria for invoking Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution.

The CJP said that the petitioner (Vawda) had renounced his US citizenship after submitting his nomination papers to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Waseem Sajjad contended that his client had neither hid facts nor did anything with mala fide intention. He submitted that only Article 63 (1) could be applied to the issue of dual citizenship, whereby a member of parliament could only be de-seated, but not disqualified for life.

When did your client file nomination papers with the Pakistan Election Commission? asked Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. Waseem Sajjad replied that Vawda had submitted his nomination papers on June 7, 2018, while the scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on June 18.

And when did the petitioner file the affidavit? Justice Mansoor Ali Shah again asked the counsel, to which he replied that the affidavit was filed on June 11, 2018. The counsel informed the court that it was brought to the notice of the returning officer (RO) that the petitioner had also given up his US nationality.

Waseem Sajjad further informed the court that his client also went to the US Embassy and informed the authorities that he was cancelling his National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis (NICOP).

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked if he went to the US embassy and verbally asked for the cancellation of his passport. “He didn’t have to give the proof of cancelling the nationality,” answered the counsel.

But you did not even feel it necessary to wrap up the dual citizenship issue before filling out an affidavit on June 11, 2018, asked Justice Shah. Waseem Sajjad submitted that the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) had issued him the certificate of cancellation of US citizenship on May 29, 2018.

At this, Justice Ayesha A Malik said how could NADRA issue a certificate when he did not go to the US embassy to have his US citizenship cancelled. Waseem Sajjad then cited the case of Samiullah Baloch.

The CJP said that it would be looked into it as if the present case could be viewed in lieu of the standard set in the Samiullah Baloch case or not. The CJP said that in the present case, the nomination papers were submitted prior to the completion of the process of renouncing his dual citizenship.

“You have to establish that the process of renouncing US citizenship was initiated before filing the nomination papers,” the CJP asked Waseem Sajjad, adding that the disqualification for life is linked with the declaration of the court and the court will examine if the petitioner has committed any dishonesty or not.

Waseem Sajjad then cited the case of one Allah Dino but the chief justice said that in the case, the court had held that the returning officer (RO) could not decide the matter of disqualification, but in the present case, the learned high court had also accepted the facts narrated by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the matter until Oct 13 after Waseem Sajjad submitted that he needed some two more days to argue the case.