Disclaimer*: The articles shared under 'Your Voice' section are sent to us by contributors and we neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of any facts stated below. Parhlo News will not be liable for any false, inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete information presented on the website. Read our disclaimer.
The story has finally ended. Prime Minister has been disqualified based on exposure of a paid position where the respondent has declared of not receiving financial benefits from that position. However, per dictionary, the asset definition includes such activity and it should have been declared in the nomination paper for the seat of Parliament. How strange it is that the main term in nomination paper has no meaning in Representation of the People Act. A nominee needs to consult (many nominees does not know the common meaning of an asset) the Black law dictionary and then include all that comes under asset.
In the Panama case judgment, this should also be noted down and as advised to Parliament for the inclusion of the complete meaning of an asset in the act. However, those can advise adding who really want to give something good to the country. This point could be raised by respondent and ask the court to ask all parliamentarian, the meaning of the asset (as what court is defining through that dictionary) if they failed to give an answer to the meaning of an asset, why only the respondent is judged based on this.
Also, a point to be raised that defining an asset in the law comes through court or through Parliament. If it was through Parliament, why the complete meaning of the Asset has not been explained in 1976 at the time of this act constitution.
The Applicant(s) main charges were to investigate, disqualify, punish and to secure the looted money from the respondent as an applicant(s) have learned through Panama papers(ONLY) that they have looted the money of tax payers.
Here I am putting few points and questions,
1. Panama paper material was provided, journalists’ investigation was presented.
2. Applicant(s) has provided a lot of documents of looted money and ownerships of respondent properties and asset.
3. Court has done an intensive discussion on the case, listened to both parties’ lawyers, noted their points, went through all documents provided to the court
4. Joint investigation committee was constituted and they have brought boxes of evidence (note the evidence word on those boxes, aired on the media).
5. Court went through study of that evidence
6. Respondent has brought the box of evidence in the second hearing in the court after JIT.
7. Court again has done discussion, listened to both parties’ lawyers, noted their points, went through all documents provided to the court.
1. Is the court failed to disqualify (and punish and order of recovery of looted money) the respondent by the charges of applicant(s) of having an illegal asset, mentioned in the Panama papers which were mostly secured through money laundering?
2. Court has issued references to NAB to investigate the above, if that was the case of sending references to NAB then such documents and evidence (as claimed by applicants) were presented before the JIT formation, then why JIT has been formed where at current the new investigation will be redone by NAB.
3. The initial claims of the applicant(s) were the illegal asset, mentioned in the Panama papers which was mostly secured through money laundering and they have asked for disqualification of the respondent.
4. Was that morally right to disqualify the respondent on the discovery of paid job with the s), a weak point (which was not a matter of dispute in between applicant(s), respondent and the people of Pakistan), was discovered and court has charged the respondent?
5. When the court was deciding based on that weak point of the respondent, did the court realized to check whether all the parliamentarians know the exact meaning of the Asset, which is not mentioned in Representation of the People Act of 1976 and even the court consulted the dictionary for knowing the meaning of this term.
6. By this judgement, are the claims and charges of applicant(s) will be fully attained or secured as punishment (as Jail sentences) and bring back the looted money.
7. Did the court asked the respondent below questions?
a. What are your assets, giving in writing?
b. What assets are inherited, giving in writing?
c. How you became successful businessperson, give the detail of the profits earned for past 20-30 years.
d. Give all bank accounts details (current open and closed in past)
e. Give the purchase deals documents of your properties.
f. If the banking records, purchase deals are not available, submit any relevant documents from the persons who court can believe in.
g. If you are failed to provide the legal documentation of such big assets, court will decide as per assumption that you have sent the money outside illegally and as an office bearer you might have done corruption in the projects where court will takes serious actions.
8. If that not withdrawan salary was not present, what was the measures inform of court for the disqualification of the respondent.
The term used as work permit was stated as euqal to IQAMA while this is not the case, IQAMA can be issued without workpermit.