Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
Traitor, rapist, murderer has future in Pak politics but Nawaz, Tareen don’t
Ansar Abbasi
March 4, 2018
Listen
ISLAMABAD: A convicted thief, dacoit, rapist, murderer, child abuser or even a traitor is qualified to become a member of the Parliament after five years of completion of his jail sentence but for the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Jehangir Tareen the doors of the Parliament and politics are closed for life despite their much lesser crime of misdeclaration.
Although Sharif and Tareen in accordance with the apex court orders are not Sadiq or Ameen for life because of their respective misdeclaration, for convicts of much serious crime the disqualification period is not more than five years of their completion of jail sentence.
The Article 63(1)(g) and (h) talks about the period of disqualification of convicted criminals.
The Article 63(1)(g) reads as: “(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if; (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.”
The Article 63(1)(h) reads as: “(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if; (h) he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.”
While Article 63(1)(g) covers even a traitor, the offences that can fall into the category of moral turpitude - the expression used in Article 63(1)(h)- are too many. According to a legal expert, in the US the offences falling in the category of “moral turpitude” are too many and even include the crimes of murder, rape, child abuse, kidnapping etc.
When contacted for his interpretation of the above articles of the constitution, the constitutional expert and seasoned parliamentarian Wasim Sajjad told The News that these provisions cover convicts of almost all serious crimes including a traitor. He said as per these constitutional provisions, the convicted criminal after five years of his release from jail becomes eligible to be member of the Parliament.
Wasim Sajjad explained that Nawaz Sharif and Jehangir Tareen have become the victims of Article 62(1)(f), which though requires of the member of Parliament to be Sadiq or Ameen but does not mention any time period for disqualification. Sajjad said that this situation - that a convicted criminal can contest elections after five years of completion of his jail sentence but those disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) for mis-declaration are disqualified for life- was discussed before the Supreme Court but the apex court had said that it was for Parliament to decide the time period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).
In the Panama case, Nawaz Sharif was disqualified for life for not declaring the unwithdrawn receivable. The verdict precisely said: “It has not been denied that the respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif) 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 an asset. When the un-withdrawn salary as being receivable is an asset it was required to be disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his nomination papers for the Elections of 2013 in terms of 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.”
In the case of Jehangir Tarin, the Supreme Court ruled: “We hold and declare that in view of our findings on the proposition about the offshore company (in short) covered by clause (e) of the conclusion, the respondent is disqualified in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA for the non-declaration of his property/asset i.e. “Hyde House” in his nomination papers, and in making untrue statement before this court, that he has no beneficial interest in SVL, therefore, he should cease to hold the office as the member of the National Assembly with immediate effect.”
In yet another interesting contradiction, some other MPs including a PML-N MNA Justice (retd) Iftikhar Cheema was disqualified by the same apex court for the same crime of misdeclaration of asset. Cheema though had also admitted to have misdeclared, yet he was only de-seated and allowed to contest the elections immediately. Consequent to the apex court order, he was de-seated but re-elected as MNA in the by-election of the seat vacated earlier by him.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/28...future-in-pak-politics-but-nawaz-tareen-don-t
Ansar Abbasi
March 4, 2018
Listen
ISLAMABAD: A convicted thief, dacoit, rapist, murderer, child abuser or even a traitor is qualified to become a member of the Parliament after five years of completion of his jail sentence but for the likes of Nawaz Sharif and Jehangir Tareen the doors of the Parliament and politics are closed for life despite their much lesser crime of misdeclaration.
Although Sharif and Tareen in accordance with the apex court orders are not Sadiq or Ameen for life because of their respective misdeclaration, for convicts of much serious crime the disqualification period is not more than five years of their completion of jail sentence.
The Article 63(1)(g) and (h) talks about the period of disqualification of convicted criminals.
The Article 63(1)(g) reads as: “(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if; (g) he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or morality, or the maintenance of public order, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.”
The Article 63(1)(h) reads as: “(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if; (h) he has been, on conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude, sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release.”
While Article 63(1)(g) covers even a traitor, the offences that can fall into the category of moral turpitude - the expression used in Article 63(1)(h)- are too many. According to a legal expert, in the US the offences falling in the category of “moral turpitude” are too many and even include the crimes of murder, rape, child abuse, kidnapping etc.
When contacted for his interpretation of the above articles of the constitution, the constitutional expert and seasoned parliamentarian Wasim Sajjad told The News that these provisions cover convicts of almost all serious crimes including a traitor. He said as per these constitutional provisions, the convicted criminal after five years of his release from jail becomes eligible to be member of the Parliament.
Wasim Sajjad explained that Nawaz Sharif and Jehangir Tareen have become the victims of Article 62(1)(f), which though requires of the member of Parliament to be Sadiq or Ameen but does not mention any time period for disqualification. Sajjad said that this situation - that a convicted criminal can contest elections after five years of completion of his jail sentence but those disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) for mis-declaration are disqualified for life- was discussed before the Supreme Court but the apex court had said that it was for Parliament to decide the time period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).
In the Panama case, Nawaz Sharif was disqualified for life for not declaring the unwithdrawn receivable. The verdict precisely said: “It has not been denied that the respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif) 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 an asset. When the un-withdrawn salary as being receivable is an asset it was required to be disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his nomination papers for the Elections of 2013 in terms of 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.”
In the case of Jehangir Tarin, the Supreme Court ruled: “We hold and declare that in view of our findings on the proposition about the offshore company (in short) covered by clause (e) of the conclusion, the respondent is disqualified in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution read with Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA for the non-declaration of his property/asset i.e. “Hyde House” in his nomination papers, and in making untrue statement before this court, that he has no beneficial interest in SVL, therefore, he should cease to hold the office as the member of the National Assembly with immediate effect.”
In yet another interesting contradiction, some other MPs including a PML-N MNA Justice (retd) Iftikhar Cheema was disqualified by the same apex court for the same crime of misdeclaration of asset. Cheema though had also admitted to have misdeclared, yet he was only de-seated and allowed to contest the elections immediately. Consequent to the apex court order, he was de-seated but re-elected as MNA in the by-election of the seat vacated earlier by him.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/28...future-in-pak-politics-but-nawaz-tareen-don-t
