IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa

Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan

Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed

Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed

Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016

(Panama Papers Scandal)

Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi

Petitioner

versus

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan /

Member National Assembly, Prime Ministers House,
Islamabad and nine others
Respondents

For the petitioner: Syed Naeem Bokhari, ASC

Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmad, ASC
Mr. Fawad Hussain Ch., ASC
Mr. Faisal Fareed Hussain, ASC
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR
with the petitioner in person

Assisted by:
Mr. Yousaf Anjum, Advocate
Mr. Kashif Siddiqui, Advocate
Mr. Imad Khan, Advocate
Mr. Akbar Hussain, Advocate
Barrister Maleeka Bokhari, Advocate
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 2
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Ms. Iman Shahid, Advocate,

For respondent No. 1: Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC

Mr. Khurram M. Hashmi, ASC
Mr. Feisal Naqvi, ASC

Assisted by:
Mr. Saad Hashmi, Advocate
Mr. Sarmad Hani, Advocate
Mr. Mustafa Mirza, Advocate

For the National Mr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry,

Accountability Bureau Chairman, National Accountability
(respondent No. 2): Bureau in person
Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor-
General Accountability
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Special
Prosecutor Accountability
Syed Ali Imran, Special Prosecutor
Accountability
Mr. Farid-ul-Hasan Ch., Special
Prosecutor Accountability

For the Federation of Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-General

Pakistan for Pakistan
(respondents No. 3 & 4): Mr. Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Additional
Attorney-General for Pakistan
Mr. Gulfam Hameed, Deputy Solicitor,
Ministry of Law & Justice

Assisted by:
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan
Mr. Salaar Khan, Advocate
Mr. Bilal Naseer, Advocate
Mr. Shahzaib Khan, Advocate

For the Federal Board of Dr. Muhammad Irshad, Chairman,

Revenue Federal Board of Revenue in person
(respondent No. 5): Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana, ASC
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR
Kh. Tanvir Ahmed, Director-General
(Intelligence)
Mr. Shaukat Ali, Director-General
Hafiz Muhammad Ali Indhar, Director
(Legal)
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja,
Member, Federal Board of Revenue
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 3
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

For respondents No. 6, Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC

9 & 10: Ms. Ayesha Hamid, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR

For respondents No. 7 Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC

& 8: Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR

Assisted by:
Malik Ahsan Mahmood, Advocate
Malik Ghulam Sabir, Advocate
Mr. Nadeem Shahzad Hashmi,
Advocate
Mr. Asad Ladha, Advocate
Mr. Zeshaan Hashmi, Advocate
Ms. Atira Ikram, Advocate
Mr. Tariq Bashir, Advocate
Mr. Muhammad Shakeel Mughal,
Advocate

Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016

(Panama Papers Scandal)

Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed

Petitioner

versus

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and

Parliamentary Division and three others
Respondents

For the petitioner: In person

For the Federation of Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-General

Pakistan for Pakistan
(respondent No. 1): Mr. Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Additional
Attorney-General for Pakistan
Mr. Gulfam Hameed, Deputy Solicitor,
Ministry of Law & Justice

Assisted by:
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 4
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Mr. Salaar Khan, Advocate

Mr. Bilal Naseer, Advocate
Mr. Shahzaib Khan, Advocate

For the National Mr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry,

Accountability Bureau Chairman, National Accountability
(respondent No. 2): Bureau in person
Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor-
General Accountability
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Special
Prosecutor Accountability
Syed Ali Imran, Special Prosecutor
Accountability
Mr. Farid-ul-Hasan Ch., Special
Prosecutor Accountability

For the Federal Board of Dr. Muhammad Irshad, Chairman,

Revenue Federal Board of Revenue in person
(respondent No. 3): Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana, ASC
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR
Kh. Tanvir Ahmed, Director-General
(Intelligence)
Mr. Shaukat Ali, Director General
Hafiz Muhammad Ali Indhar, Director
(Legal)
Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Khawaja,
Member, Federal Board of Revenue

For respondent No. 4: Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC

Mr. Khurram M. Hashmi, ASC
Mr. Feisal Naqvi, ASC

Assisted by:
Mr. Saad Hashmi, Advocate
Mr. Sarmad Hani, Advocate
Mr. Mustafa Mirza, Advocate

Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(Panama Papers Scandal)

Siraj-ul-Haq, Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan Petitioner

versus
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 5
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Parliamentary

Affairs, Islamabad and three others Respondents

For the petitioner: Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC

Sh. Ahsan-ud-Din, ASC
Mr. Atif Ali Khan, ASC
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR
with the petitioner in person.

Assisted by:
Mr. Khan Afzal Khan, ASC
Mr. Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Advocate
Mr. Saif Ullah Gondal, Advocate
Mr. Sher Hamid Khan, Advocate
Mr. Imran Shafiq, Advocate
Mr. Asad Ullah Bhutto, Advocate

For the Federation of Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-

Pakistan General for Pakistan
(respondents No. 1 to 3): Mr. Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Additional
Attorney-General for Pakistan
Mr. Gulfam Hameed, Deputy
Solicitor, Ministry of Law & Justice

Assisted by:
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan
Mr. Salaar Khan, Advocate
Mr. Bilal Naseer, Advocate
Mr. Shahzaib Khan, Advocate

For respondent No. 4: Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC

Mr. Khurram M. Hashmi, ASC
Mr. Feisal Naqvi, ASC

Assisted by:
Mr. Saad Hashmi, Advocate
Mr. Sarmad Hani, Advocate
Mr. Mustafa Mirza, Advocate

Dates of hearing: 04.01.2017, 05.01.2017, 06.01.2017,

09.01.2017, 10.01.2017, 11.01.2017,
12.01.2017, 13.01.2017, 16.01.2017,
17.01.2017, 18.01.2017, 19.01.2017,
20.01.2017, 23.01.2017, 24.01.2017,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 6
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

25.01.2017, 26.01.2017, 27.01.2017,

30.01.2017, 31.01.2017, 01.02.2017,
15.02.2017, 16.02.2017, 21.02.2017,
22.02.2017 & 23.02.2017.

JUDGMENT

The popular 1969 novel The Godfather by Mario Puzo

recounted the violent tale of a Mafia family and the epigraph

selected by the author was fascinating:

Behind every great fortune there is a crime.

Balzac

The novel was a popular sensation which was made into an

acclaimed film. It is believed that this epigraph was inspired by a

sentence that was written by Honor de Balzac and its original

version in French reads as follows:

Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente

est un crime oubli, parce quil a t proprement fait.

(The secret of a great success for which you are at a

loss to account is a crime that has never been found
out, because it was properly executed)

It is ironical and a sheer coincidence that the present case revolves

around that very sentence attributed to Balzac as through

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 it has been alleged by the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 7
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

petitioner namely Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, Chairman of a

political party named Tehreek-e-Insaf, that while holding high

public offices in the State of Pakistan over a stretched period of

time respondent No. 1 namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the

incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan, and through him his

immediate family has amassed huge wealth and assets which have

been acquired through means which were illegal and unfair,

practices which were unlawful and corrupt and exercise of public

authority which was misused and abused. Through Constitution

Petition No. 30 of 2016 Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed petitioner,

Chairman of a political party named Awami Muslim League, and

through Constitution Petition No. 3 of 2017 Siraj-ul-Haq petitioner,

Ameer of another political party named Jamaat-e-Islami, have also

agitated the same issue. All the above mentioned petitioners have

inter alia prayed that it may be declared by this Court that

respondent No. 1 in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 (who is

respondent No. 4 in the other two petitions) is not honest and

ameen within the purview of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and, thus, he is disqualified

from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Some

other reliefs have also been prayed for by the petitioners and the

same shall also be dealt with by me at appropriate stages of the

present judgment. For facility of reference Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif shall be referred to in this judgment as respondent No. 1,

his daughter namely Mariam Safdar shall be referred to as

respondent No. 6, his son-in-law namely Captain (Retired)

Muhammad Safdar shall be referred to as respondent No. 9, his

sons namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Hassan Nawaz

Sharif shall be referred to as respondents No. 7 and 8 respectively

and his Samdhi (father-in-law of one of his daughters) namely Mr.

Muhammad Ishaq Dar shall be referred to as respondent No. 10 as

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 8
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

arrayed in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016. We have been

informed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the said

respondent has so far held the following high public offices:

Minister for Finance, Excise and Taxation, Government of the

Punjab
(from April 25, 1981 to February 28, 1985)

Chief Minister, Government of the Punjab

(from April 09, 1985 to May 30, 1988)

Caretaker Chief Minister, Government of the Punjab

(from May 31, 1988 to December 02, 1988)

Chief Minister, Government of the Punjab

(from December 02, 1988 to August 06, 1990)

Prime Minister of Pakistan

(from November 06, 1990 to April 18, 1993)

Prime Minister of Pakistan

(from May 26, 1993 to July 18, 1993)

Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly

(from October 19, 1993 to November 05, 1996)

Prime Minister of Pakistan

(from February 17, 1997 to October 12, 1999)

Prime Minister of Pakistan

(from June 05, 2013 till date)

A younger brother of respondent No. 1 namely Mian Muhammad

Shahbaz Sharif has also served in the past as Chief Minister,

Government of the Punjab for many terms and even presently he is

holding that high public office. A Samdhi of respondent No. 1

namely Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Dar, respondent No. 10 herein, has

remained and is also the present Federal Minister for Finance and

a nephew of respondent No. 1 is a Member of the National

Assembly at present. In an interview with Mr. Hamid Mir and Mr.

Sohail Warraich telecast on Geo News television on November 17,

2009 respondent No. 1 had maintained that he belonged to a

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 9
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

business family and he had claimed that the members of his family

who were in politics (including respondent No. 1 himself) had

decided in the year 1997 to disassociate themselves from the

family business. The contents of the said interview have never been

denied or controverted by respondent No. 1 and nothing has been

brought on the record of this case to show how and when the

claimed disassociation had actually come about, if at all. It is,

however, not disputed that between 1981 and 1997 respondent No.

1s public offices and his business interests coincided and

coexisted.

2. In the last two and a half decades there had been a constant

murmur nationally as well internationally about respondent No. 1

indulging in corruption, corrupt practices and money laundering,

etc. with the active assistance and involvement of respondent No.

10 and some specified properties in London, United Kingdom had

been identified as having been acquired by respondent No. 1

through ill-gotten or laundered money. In that regard the British

Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had come out with a

documentary, the British newspaper Guardian had published a

story about it, Mr. Raymond W. Baker had mentioned some specific

details about it in his book Capitalisms Achilles Heel (published

in 2005 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey) and

some prosecutions had been launched against respondents No. 1

and 10 and others locally by the Federal Investigation Agency and

the National Accountability Bureau. However, this time it all

started ominously on April 03, 2016 when the International

Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) released some

information leaked from the internal database of a law firm named

Mossack Fonseca based in Panama. The said information was

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 10
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

published in the print and electronic media worldwide on April 04,

2016 disclosing details of a large number of offshore companies

established in different countries providing tax havens and owned

or controlled by hundreds of persons and entities based in

different countries of the world. The information so disclosed also

revealed that many political and public figures in different

countries and their families, including the children of respondent

No. 1 herein, held or owned valuable assets in different parts of the

world through such offshore companies. The political uproar that

followed forced some political figures in the world to resign from

high public offices and others to submit explanations in the

parliaments whereas in some countries high powered bodies were

constituted to inquire into the allegations of corruption, corrupt

practices and money laundering, etc. adopted in the matter.

Respondent No. 1 happens to be the elected Prime Minister of our

country and the political tumult arising out of the so-called

Panama Papers compelled him to explain his position by

addressing the nation twice on radio and television and the

National Assembly once, abortive attempts were made to constitute

a Judicial Commission to inquire into the allegations leveled

against respondent No. 1 and his immediate family and ultimately

the present Constitution Petitions were filed before this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan, 1973. In the backdrop of an unfortunate refusal/failure

on the part of all the relevant institutions in the country like the

National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Investigation Agency,

the State Bank of Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue, the

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and the Speaker

of the National Assembly to inquire into or investigate the matter or

to refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan against

respondent No. 1, who is the Chief Executive of the Federation, and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 11
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

his family it was decided by a Larger Bench of this Court on

November 03, 2016 with reference to some precedent cases that

these petitions involve some serious questions of public importance

with reference to enforcement of some Fundamental Rights

conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution and, therefore,

the same are maintainable before this Court under Article 184(3)

of the Constitution. On that occasion none of the parties to these

petitions raised any objection to competence and maintainability of

these petitions and even before the present reconstituted Larger

Bench (which includes a majority of the members of the earlier

Larger Bench) no such objection has been raised at any stage of

the protracted hearings.

3. At the commencement of regular hearing of these petitions it

had been decided by this Court with concurrence of the learned

counsel for all the parties that it might not be possible for this

Court to take stock of the entire gamut of the business activities

and personal lives of respondent No. 1 and his family within the

limited scope of these petitions and, therefore, these petitions

would be decided by focusing mainly, but not exclusively, on the

properties relevant to respondent No. 1 and his children which

were revealed through the Panama Papers. The details of the said

properties are as follows:

(i) Property No. 17, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London W1K
7AF, United Kingdom

(owned by a Panama based offshore company named

Nescoll Limited since June 01, 1993),
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 12
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(ii) Property No. 16, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London W1K
7AF, United Kingdom

(owned by a Panama based offshore company named

Nielsen Enterprises Limited since July 31, 1995),

(iii) Property No. 16a, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London

W1K 7AF, United Kingdom

(owned by a Panama based offshore company named

Nielsen Enterprises Limited since July 31, 1995) and

(iv) Property No. 17a, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London

W1K 7AF, United Kingdom

(owned by a Panama based offshore company named

Nescoll Limited since July 23, 1996).

It may be pertinent to mention here that during the course of

hearing of these petitions it has come to light that there have been

and are many other properties and businesses owned by

respondent No. 1s immediate family not only in Pakistan but also

in many other countries the value of which statedly runs into

billions of Rupees or US Dollars. The net worth of just the above

mentioned four properties, situated in one of the most expensive

areas of London, is stated to be many millions of Pounds Sterling

and they had statedly come into the ownership of only one of the

sons of respondent No. 1 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif

(respondent No. 7 herein). Another son of respondent No. 1 namely

Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif (respondent No. 8 herein) separately

owns many companies and properties worth millions of Pounds

Sterling and a daughter of respondent No. 1 namely Mariam Nawaz

Sharif, also known as Mariam Safdar, (respondent No. 6 herein)

also holds some valuable properties in her own name. None of the

children of respondent No. 1 has ever claimed that the businesses

set up or the properties acquired in his/her name had initially

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 13
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been set up or acquired through any personal earning or resources

of his/her own.

4. Concise statements/replies to these petitions had been filed

by all the contesting respondents and elaborate arguments had

been heard by us from all the sides on all the relevant issues.

During the hearing of these petitions the following issues inter alia

had primarily been debated before us:

(a) What is the scope of the proceedings before this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and whether
disputed or intricate questions of fact can be decided in such
proceedings with or without recording of evidence?

(b) Whether the above mentioned four properties in

London in particular, statedly acquired in the name of Mr.
Hussain Nawaz Sharif, a son of respondent No. 1, had been
acquired by respondent No. 1 and his family through funds
legitimately generated and transferred and whether
acquisition of those assets has duly and properly been
explained and accounted for by respondent No. 1 or his
children?

(c) Whether respondent No. 1 and his children have any

decent explanation available for acquiring properties and
setting up various businesses in general in different parts of
the world?

(d) Whether respondent No. 1 is not honest or ameen

as required by Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution as he has
failed to duly account for his and his immediate familys
wealth and assets and his various explanations advanced
before the nation, the National Assembly and this Court in
that regard have been evasive, contradictory, unproved and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 14
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

untrue rendering him disqualified from being elected to or

from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)?

(e) Whether Mariam Safdar, a daughter of respondent No.

1, was respondent No. 1s dependent in the year 2013 and
in his nomination papers filed for election to the National
Assembly in the general elections held in that year
respondent No. 1 had failed to disclose such dependency and
had, thus, been guilty of suppression of a material fact for
which the necessary legal consequences ought to follow?

(f) Whether respondent No. 1 had been evading taxes and

he had thereby rendered himself disqualified from being
elected to or from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament)?

(g) Whether some allegations of indulging in corruption,

corrupt practices and money laundering, etc. leveled against
respondent No. 1, respondent No. 10 and some others in the
past had unduly been scuttled through some judicial
recourses and what would be the remedies available for
reopening of those allegations and for their prosecution?

In the following paragraphs I intend to deal with all the above

mentioned and other related issues with reference to the

contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the material

made available on the record.

5. Appearing for Mr. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi petitioner in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 Syed Naeem Bokhari, ASC

read out the first speech made by respondent No. 1 namely Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif before the nation on radio and television

on April 05, 2016 and maintained that in that speech respondent

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 15
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No. 1 had neither been honest nor truthful because in that speech

the source of funds for purchase of the properties in London was

stated to be the sale of a factory near Makkah whereas in his

subsequent speech made before the National Assembly on May 16,

2016 he had introduced a factory in Dubai the sale of which was

the initial source of funds and the factory near Makkah was

described as a factory in Jeddah. He emphasized that in the

speech made by respondent No. 1 before the National Assembly it

had categorically been stated that all the record relevant to the

factories in Dubai and Jeddah was available and would be

produced before any forum inquiring into the matter but except for

a few documents of sale no such record had been produced by him

before this Court. He highlighted that on that occasion respondent

No. 1 had proclaimed that those were the resources through which

the properties in London had been purchased which was a claim

that was contradicted before this Court by respondent No. 1s own

children and was, thus, false and untrue.

6. Mr. Bokhari pointed out from the documents produced on

the record by respondent No. 1 and his children that some land

was obtained on lease in Dubai on March 28, 1974, permission to

set up a factory was granted by the Government of Dubai on April

28, 1974, a rent agreement in that regard was executed on June

12, 1974, a factory was installed on that land through funds which

were never properly explained, 75% shares of that factory were sold

to the Ahli family through a Tripartite Agreement of Sale in the

year 1978 and then through a Final Share Sale Agreement dated

April 14, 1980 the remaining 25% shares of that factory were also

sold to the same family. He maintained that a bare perusal of the

Tripartite Agreement of Sale of 1978 showed that no money

became available to the seller on the basis of that sale as the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 16
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

proceeds of the sale were completely consumed in paying off debts,

dues and liabilities which were much more than the sale proceeds

inasmuch as the seller owed the Bank of Credit and Commerce

International a sum of 27.6 million Dirhams and the outstanding

liabilities of the company were to the tune of about 36 million

Dirhams. He pointed out that it was claimed by respondent No. 1

and his children that an amount of 12 million Dirhams in cash

had become available to the seller as a result of the Final Share

Sale Agreement in the year 1980 but no independent proof had

been produced in that respect. He also pointed out that the

Agreement in the year 1980 had been signed by Mian Muhammad

Shahbaz Sharif, a younger brother of respondent No. 1, as an

authorized agent of one Mr. Tariq Shafi, a cousin of respondent No.

1, who was statedly a Benami owner of that factory on behalf of

respondent No. 1s father namely Mian Muhammad Sharif and no

independent proof had been brought on the record of this case to

establish that Mian Muhammad Sharif was the actual owner of

that factory, Mr. Tariq Shafi was his Benamidar, Mian Muhammad

Shahbaz Sharif was an authorized agent of Mr. Tariq Shafi or 12

million Dirhams had actually been received in cash by the seller as

a result of that sale. While referring to the signatures of Mr. Tariq

Shafi available on his affidavit sworn on November 12, 2016 it was

maintained by Mr. Bokhari that the signatures of Mr. Tariq Shafi

on the Agreement signed in the year 1980 were fake. Mr. Bokhari

emphasized that in his affidavit of November 12, 2016 Mr. Tariq

Shafi had clearly maintained that no money had come into his

hands from the sale of 75% shares of the factory in Dubai in the

year 1978 but in the year 1980 a sum of 12 million Dirhams had

been received by him in cash through the sale of the remaining

25% shares of the factory in the year 1980. Thus, Mr. Bokhari

maintained that respondent No. 1 was not being truthful when he

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 17
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

had stated before the National Assembly on May 16, 2016 that the

sale of the factory in Dubai had fetched the family a sum of 33.37

million Dirhams in the year 1980.

7. Mr. Bokhari forcefully argued that respondent No. 1 had

never mentioned any investment by the family in the real estate

business in Qatar in his speeches made before the nation or in the

National Assembly and he had also failed to make any mention of

the same in his concise statements filed before this Court whereas

respondent No. 1s children had based their entire case upon the

resources generated through the familys investment made in the

real estate business in Qatar. According to Mr. Bokhari the

contradictions between respondent No. 1 and his children in this

regard were irreconcilable because according to respondent No. 1

the resources becoming available through sale of the factory in

Dubai were used for setting up a factory in Jeddah whereas his

children had maintained that the resources becoming available

from the sale of the factory in Dubai were utilized for investment in

the real estate business in Qatar and thereafter the properties in

London had been acquired on the basis of a settlement of the

business in Qatar! Referring to a statement of one Mr. Hamad Bin

Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani of Qatar dated November 05, 2016

produced before this Court during the present proceedings Mr.

Bokhari maintained that the said statement was nothing but an

afterthought and a complete concoction which destroyed credibility

of respondent No. 1 irretrievably. Mr. Bokhari asserted with

vehemence that the relevant four properties in London had

actually been purchased by respondent No. 1 between the years

1993 and 1996 through undisclosed resources and through money

laundering.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 18
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

8. Mr. Bokhari brought the statement of Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim

Bin Jabir Al-Thani of Qatar dated November 05, 2016 (to be

reproduced and discussed in the later part of this judgment) under

scathing criticism and maintained that the said statement did not

even qualify to be called evidence. According to him the contents of

paragraph No. 1 of that statement were not based upon personal

knowledge of the maker of the statement; the contents of

paragraph No. 2 of that statements were based upon nothing but

hearsay; it was not disclosed in that paragraph as to who had

disclosed the facts stated therein to the maker of the statement; it

was not revealed in that paragraph as to who had disclosed the

desire of late Mian Muhammad Sharif to the maker of the

statement; it was not disclosed in paragraph No. 3 of that

statement as to how and on what basis the maker of the statement

had understood what he had claimed to have understood; it was

not mentioned in that paragraph that the money invested by late

Mian Muhammad Sharif in the real estate business in Qatar was

the sale proceeds of a factory in Dubai; in paragraph No. 4 of the

statement no detail of the real estate business in Qatar was

disclosed; it was claimed in that paragraph that the bearer share

certificates of the properties in London were kept at that time in

Qatar but it was not claimed that the said certificates were in the

custody of the Al-Thani family of Qatar; no detail of the settlement

of the real estate business in Qatar, no detail of payment, no

banking channel and no money trail from Qatar to London was

provided in that paragraph of the statement; no detail about use of

the properties in London had been mentioned in the said

paragraph; in paragraph No. 5 of that statement it was not

disclosed as to when and before whom late Mian Muhammad

Sharif had made his stated wish, what was the proof of that wish

and why all his heirs were kept out of the settlement of his real
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 19
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

estate business in Qatar; in paragraph No. 6 of that statement a

settlement between Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif (respondent No. 7)

and Al-Thani family of Qatar was mentioned without any mention

of a settlement with the maker of the statement, i.e. Mr. Hamad

Bin Jassim Bin Jabir Al-Thani; and the said statement talked

about the available records in Doha, Qatar but no such record had

been mentioned. Mr. Bokhari stressed that the said statement from

Qatar was a naked improvement upon the case of respondent No. 1

who had never mentioned any family investment in Qatar in all his

speeches and his concise statements. According to Mr. Bokhari if

the said statement of the gentleman from Qatar were to be kept out

of consideration then the entire defence of respondent No. 1 and

his children collapsed to the ground because there was no banking

transaction or movement of funds from Dubai to London, from

Jeddah to London or even from Qatar to London for the purposes

of acquisition or purchase of the four properties in London.

9. Mr. Bokhari then referred to various interviews given by

respondent No. 1, his wife and three children on the issue of the

four properties in London highlighting that in each such interview

a different story had been narrated as to how the said properties

had been acquired by the family. He pointed out that in his

interview with Tim Sebastian on BBCs Hard Talk in November

1999 Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif (respondent No. 8) had stated that

he was merely a student at that time with no income of his own.

He had admitted that he was living in the relevant flats in London

which were taken on rent and that the rent money came from

Pakistan on a quarterly basis. Mr. Bokhari then referred to The

Guardian newspaper of England dated April 10, 2000 wherein Mrs.

Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif (wife of respondent No. 1) had been quoted

as saying that the flats in London had been bought because the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 20
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

children were studying in London. Mr. Bokhari then pointed out

that in her interview with Sana Bucha on Geo Televisions Laikin

on November 8, 2011 Mariam Safdar (Respondent No. 6) had

categorically stated that she had no property of her own in Central

London or any house in Pakistan or abroad. She had wondered as

to from where her properties or of her brothers had been

discovered by people. She had gone on to say that she lived with

her father at his house. Mr. Bokhari also referred to an interview of

respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif with Mr.

Hamid Mir in Capital Talk on Geo News television on January 19,

2016 wherein respondent No. 7 had stated that the sale of the

factory in Jeddah had fetched good money which had been

officially transferred to England about eleven or twelve years ago

and through that money he had acquired three properties there

through mortgage for which payments were still being made. He

had gone on to state in that interview that the said properties had

been purchased by him and they were still in possession of the

family. Mr. Bokhari submitted that no record of the stated official

transfer of money from Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom had

been produced before this Court. He also pointed out that the

stance of respondent No. 7 regarding purchase of those

properties through mortgage had subsequently been changed. He

highlighted that no mention had been made in that interview to

any investment in real estate business in Qatar and to the

properties in London having been acquired as a result of any

settlement of that investment. Mr. Bokhari also referred to an

interview of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif with Javed Chaudhry in Kal

Tak on March 07, 2016 on Express News television wherein he

admitted ownership of the two offshore companies and of the

relevant properties in London besides stating that respondent No.

8 was doing business in London for the last 21 years. Mr. Bokhari
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 21
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

pointed out that respondent No. 8 had said in his interview in the

year 1999 referred to above that he was a student till then with no

business or income of his own and that in his interview on March

07, 2016 respondent No. 7 had stated that the relevant properties

in London belonged to us and no mention had been made by him

in that interview to any investment in Qatar being the source of

acquisition of those properties. Mr. Bokhari then drew the Courts

attention towards an interview of respondent No. 1 with Hamid Mir

and Sohail Warraich on November 17, 2009 on Geo News television

wherein he had stated that he had disassociated himself from the

family business in the year 1997. Mr. Bokhari also referred to the

speech made by respondent No. 1 on April 05, 2016 wherein he

had stated that with the money becoming available through sale of

the factory in Jeddah in June 2005 his sons had started their

business which story had subsequently been changed by

maintaining that it was with that money that the apartments in

London had been purchased and still later the story had once

again been changed to acquisition of those properties in London

through a settlement of a real estate business in Qatar.

10. Mr. Bokhari then referred to paragraph No. 113 of the

judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah and

others v. General Pervez Musharraf Chief Executive of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2000 SC 869) wherein a reference had been made to a

judgment passed by the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench

Division, London on March 16, 1999 in the case of Al Towfeek

Company v. Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited, etc. followed by a decree

dated November 05, 1999 against Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited,

etc. for about 34 million US Dollars. According to the record

Mariam Safdar (respondent No. 6 herein) and Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif (respondent No. 7 herein) were included in the Directors of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 22
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited and Mian Shahbaz Sharif (a younger

brother of respondent No. 1 herein), Mian Muhammad Sharif

(father of respondent No. 1 herein) and Mian Muhammad Abbas

Sharif (another younger brother of respondent No. 1 herein) had

beneficial interest therein. In the year 1999 a caution was placed

by the court upon the relevant four properties in London in

connection with the decree passed and on February 21, 2000 that

caution was lifted upon satisfaction of the decree. Mr. Bokhari

maintained that lifting of the caution and release of the said

properties upon satisfaction of that decree clearly established that

the Sharif family owned those properties way back in the year

1999 and the claim of respondent No. 1 and his children before

this Court that the said properties were acquired in the year 2006

was false. He went on to maintain that both the offshore

companies, i.e. Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited

were in fact established by respondent No. 1 and the four

properties in London were purchased by the said companies

between 1993 and 1996 on behalf of respondent No. 1 and that his

family is in physical possession of those properties ever since. He

vehemently argued that the entire story about the said properties

having been transferred to the ownership of Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif in the year 2006 as a result of a settlement of some real

estate business in Qatar was a concoction incarnate.

11. Mr. Bokhari pointed out that respondent No. 7 namely Mr.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia since the year

2000 and till that year he had no income of his own to set up his

own business. Respondent No. 8 namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif

was a student in London, United Kingdom in the year 1999 with no

income of his own and he had statedly started his own business in

London on April 12, 2001 by setting up a company named Flagship

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 23
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Investments Limited. The Directors report of the said company for

that year showed that respondent No. 8 had Pounds Sterling

705,071 to his credit as the Director of that company and

respondent No. 8 never advanced any explanation of his own as to

how and from where he came to have that kind of money. The

Financial Statement of that company dated March 31, 2003

showed that respondent No. 8 had made a loan of Pounds Sterling

307,761 to that company with a balance of Pounds Sterling

990,244. The Financial Statement of that company dated March

31, 2004 showed that the said respondent had made a loan of

Pounds Sterling 593,939 to that company with a balance of

Pounds Sterling 1,606,771. The Financial Statement of that

company dated March 31, 2005 also showed that the company

owed that respondent a huge amount of money. Mr. Bokhari also

pointed out that respondent No. 8 had also set up another

company by the name of Que Holdings Limited and the Notes of

Account of that company dated July 31, 2004 showed that the said

respondent had 100% holding in that company to which he had

given a loan of Pounds Sterling 99,999. The Financial Statement of

that company dated July 31, 2005 showed that respondent No. 8

had given a loan to that company amounting to Pounds Sterling

541,694. Mr. Bokhari highlighted that respondent No. 8 owned

about ten companies in London even prior to the sale of the factory

in Jeddah by the family in June 2005 and the credit from

respondent No. 8 to the companies controlled by him was Pounds

Sterling 2,351,877 by the year 2005 for which he had offered no

explanation whatsoever till the belated revelation regarding an

investment in Qatar by way of an afterthought. According to Mr.

Bokhari the money becoming available to respondent No. 8 in

London was nothing but money laundered by respondent No. 1

and the details of such money laundering were available in the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 24
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

report prepared by Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the Federal

Investigation Agency of Pakistan in September 1998.

12. The next plank of the arguments advanced by Mr. Bokhari

was that as a matter of fact respondent No. 6 namely Mariam

Safdar, a daughter of respondent No. 1, was the beneficial owner of

the relevant offshore companies owning the four properties in

London. In this connection he referred to various emails exchanged

in June 2012 between the Financial Investigation Agency of the

British Virgin Islands, the law firm Mossack Fonseca and Minerva

Trust & Corporate Services Limited, the administrator of the two

companies, according to which there was no trust attached to the

said companies and the beneficial owner of two of the properties in

London was respondent No. 6. He also pointed out that in her

Personal Information Form submitted before the law firm on

October 14, 2011 respondent No. 6 had disclosed her source of

wealth as the familys wealth and business spread over a period of

sixty years. He also referred to a document dated December 03,

2005 which established respondent No. 6s connection with

Minerva Financial Services Limited in the year 2005, prior to the

claimed acquisition of the relevant properties in London in the year

2006, which document had statedly been signed by respondent No.

6 as the sole shareholder of one of the two offshore companies.

13. Mr. Bokhari also argued that the documents relied upon by

respondents No. 6 and 7 as Trust Deeds establishing respondent

No. 6 as a trustee of respondent No. 7 in respect of the four

properties in London were sham. He pointed out that the said

documents were purportedly signed by one party on February 02,

2006 in one country and by the other party on February 04, 2006

in another country, a seal was affixed on those documents on

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 25
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

November 07, 2016 after about ten years and those documents

were certified to be correct copies only. According to him there was

no attestation of the trust deeds and attestation appearing thereon

was not of the documents but of the copies only.

14. It was conceded by Mr. Bokhari that through these petitions

none of the petitioners has sought any declaration or relief against

respondent No. 6 namely Mariam Safdar but he maintained that

the said respondent was, is and remains a dependent of her father,

i.e. respondent No. 1. According to him respondent No. 6 was the

actual beneficial owner of the four properties in London and

respondent No. 1 had not disclosed that fact in his declaration

attached with the nomination forms filed for candidature in the

general elections held in the country in the year 2013 which

suppression of fact was sufficient to disqualify him as a Member of

the National Assembly. He pointed out that in his Wealth

Statement submitted with the income-tax return for the year 2011

respondent No. 1 had mentioned the land purchased by him in the

name of respondent No. 6 in Column No. 12 meant for spouse,

minor children and other dependents and, thus, he had

acknowledged respondent No. 6 as his dependent. He went on to

submit that respondent No. 6 had no independent means of

income, her agricultural income was not sufficient to sustain her

on her own, her traveling expenses were more than her declared

income, she paid no bills and admittedly she was living with father

who periodically gave her huge gifts in cash and kind. He referred

to the definition of Dependent in Blacks Law Dictionary and

maintained that respondent No. 6 had no independent source of

income. In this connection he referred to the Wealth Statements

submitted by respondent No. 6 showing that in the year 2011 she

had received Rs. 3,17,00,000, in the year 2012 she had received
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 26
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Rs. 5,16,24,000 and in the year 2013 she had received Rs.

3,78,68,000 as gifts from respondent No. 1 besides receiving Rs.

4,23,04,310 as loans and advances from Chaudhry Sugar Mills in

the year 2011 and a loan of Rs. 2,89,33,800 from respondent No. 8

in the year 2012. He also pointed out that the husband of

respondent No. 6 had not paid any tax till the year 2013 and

respondent No. 6 had admitted in an interview that she had no

house in Pakistan or abroad. Mr. Bokhari maintained that the

properties standing in the names of respondent No. 6 were in fact

Benami and actually owned by her father, i.e. respondent No. 1. He

referred to the cases of Muhammad Nawaz Minhas and others v.

Mst. Surriya Sabir Minhas and others (2009 SCMR 124), Ch.

Ghulam Rasool v. Mrs. Nusrat Rasool and 4 others (PLD 2008 SC

146), Abdul Majeed and others v. Amir Muhammad and others

(2005 SCMR 577), Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others v. Abdul Majeed

Rauf and others (PLD 2012 Lahore 141), Mv. MD. Abdul Majid and

others v. MD. Jainul Abedin and others (PLD 1970 Dacca 414),

Malik Muhammad Zubair and 2 others v. Malik Muhammad Anwar

and 2 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 515), Syed Ansar Hussain and 2

others v. Khawaja Muhammad Kaleem and 4 others (2006 CLC 732)

and S. Abid Ali and 3 others v. Syed Inayat Ali and 5 others (2010

CLC 1633) and maintained that the requisite ingredients of a

Benami transaction stood fully attracted to the acquisition of

properties in the name of respondent No. 6 and as she had no

independent source of income, therefore, respondent No. 1 was the

actual owner of those properties and the same was true of even the

four properties in London purchased between 1993 and 1996.

15. Mr. Bokhari further argued that respondent No. 1 had also

been guilty of tax evasion. In this regard he submitted that

respondent No. 1 had received Rs. 74 crores from his sons between
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 27
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the years 2011 and 2015 as gifts but no tax was paid by him on

that amount. He referred to the Wealth Statement submitted by

respondent No. 1 for the tax year 2011 in column No. 3(ii) whereof

it was mentioned that the said respondent had received a gift of

more than Rs. 12 crores from a son and he had gifted about Rs. 5

crores to R6 and R7. According to Mr. Bokhari total gifts received

by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 7 were for Rs. 81 crores.

He referred to section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001

according to which all the loans and gifts received were to be

declared but respondent No. 1 had not paid tax on such gifts. Mr.

Bokhari questioned the capacity of respondent No. 7 to make such

huge gifts to respondent No. 1 and maintained that money was

being rotated and laundered money was being made kosher

through such gifts. According to Mr. Bokhari nearly Rs. 74 crores

had admittedly been received by respondent No. 1 from

respondents No. 7 & 8 which was income from other sources but

no tax was paid on that amount. He submitted that the Federal

Board of Revenue may be directed to recover the tax due and

respondent No. 1 may be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution even on that score.

16. Adverting to respondent No. 10 namely Mr. Muhammad

Ishaq Dar, the incumbent Federal Minister for Finance and a

Samdhi of respondent No. 1, Mr. Bokhari referred to a confessional

statement made by him under section 164, Cr.P.C. before a

Magistrate First Class, Lahore on April 25, 2000 wherein he had

confessed to laundering money for the benefit of respondent No. 1

and others and on the basis of that Reference No. 5 of 2000 had

been filed by the National Accountability Bureau before an

Accountability Court against Hudabiya Paper Mills, three Sharif

brothers, respondent No. 10 and others. That Reference was

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 28
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

quashed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court,

Lahore on March 11, 2014 upon acceptance of Writ Petition No.

2617 of 2011. After quashing of the Reference the two learned

Judges of the High Court had disagreed with each other over the

issue of reinvestigation of the case by the National Accountability

Bureau and thus the said aspect of the case was referred to a

learned Referee Judge who held that the case could not be allowed

to be reinvestigated. We have been informed that the Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau did not challenge that judgment of

the Lahore High Court, Lahore before this Court through any

petition/appeal. Mr. Bokhari maintained that the present

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau had been appointed by

respondent No. 1 himself and, therefore, he had returned the

favour by not filing any petition/appeal in that case against

respondent No. 1 and others. According to Mr. Bokhari the

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, respondent No. 2

herein, had failed in due performance of his duty in that regard

and, thus, he was liable to be proceeded against under Article 209

of the Constitution for his removal from office through the

Supreme Judicial Council. Mr. Bokhari also prayed that this Court

may issue a direction to the Chairman, National Accountability

Bureau to file a petition/appeal in the above mentioned matter

before this Court with a prayer for condoning of the delay in filing

of such petition/appeal.

17. With the submissions made above Mr. Bokhari prayed that a

declaration may be issued by this Court that respondent No. 1 is

not honest and ameen within the purview of Article 62(1)(f) of

the Constitution and on the basis of such a declaration he may be

held to be disqualified from membership of the National Assembly;

the closed cases of corruption, corrupt practices and money

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 29
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

laundering, etc. against respondents No. 1, 10 and others may be

reopened for fresh investigation and prosecution; and the

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and the Chairman,

Federal Board of Revenue may be directed to take every step

possible under the law to recover the plundered wealth of the

nation and to bring the culprits to book.

18. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed petitioner appearing in person in

Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 also argued that respondent

No. 1 in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 (who is respondent

No. 4 in Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016) is liable to be

disqualified from membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

because he is not honest and ameen within the purview of

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. He maintained that in his

Wealth Statement submitted with the income-tax return for the

year 2011 respondent No. 1 had mentioned the land purchased by

him in the name of his daughter namely Mariam Safdar in Column

No. 12 which was meant for spouse, minor children and other

dependents and, thus, he had acknowledged that the said

daughter of his was his dependent but in the same statement in

the column relating to family members and dependents respondent

No. 1 had not shown her as his dependent which impinged upon

his honesty.

19. The statements made by the gentleman from Qatar (to be

reproduced and discussed in the later part of this judgment) were

described by the said petitioner as hearsay and not based upon

personal knowledge. The petitioner further maintained that the

said statements of the gentleman from Qatar showed existence of

business relations between Al-Thani family of Qatar and the family

of respondent No. 1 since prior to the year 1980 but no disclosure

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 30
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

in that regard had ever been made by respondent No. 1 at any

stage which again reflected adversely upon his honesty.

20. Referring to the judgment and decree passed by the High

Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, London in the year 1999

the petitioner submitted that the relevant four properties in

London were placed under caution till satisfaction of the decree

and as the said decree had later on been satisfied by respondent

No. 1s family, therefore, the connection between respondent No. 1

and ownership of those properties clearly stood established way

back in the year 2000.

21. Regarding the Trust Deed dated February 02, 2006 statedly

executed between respondents No. 6 and 7 the petitioner pointed

out that the document had not been attested by the Pakistani High

Commission, it was not notarized and the witness of the document

was not identifiable.

22. According to Mr. Sheikh some documents becoming available

on the record showed that it was respondent No. 6 namely Mariam

Safdar who was the actual beneficial owner of the relevant

properties in London.

23. Adverting to the affidavits of Mr. Tariq Shafi brought on the

record by the respondents the petitioner pointed out that Mr. Tariq

Shafi was only nineteen years of age and admittedly a Benamidar

when the factory in Dubai was set up in his name which fitted into

a pattern of respondent No. 1s family putting up a front man for

its businesses and assets and the same pattern was also followed

in acquisition of the four properties in London.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 31
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

24. Mr. Sheikh vehemently argued that respondent No. 1 has not

been honest with the nation, the National Assembly and this

Court in the matter of explaining the mode of acquisition and the

resources for acquisition of the properties in London and, thus, he

has become disqualified from remaining a member of the National

Assembly by virtue of the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution. In this regard he referred to the cases of Muhammad

Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828), Mian

Najeeb-ud-Din Owasi and another v. Amir Yar Waran and others

(PLD 2013 SC 482), Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam

and others (PLD 2013 SC 179), Mudassar Qayyum Nahra v. Ch.

Bilal Ijaz and others (2011 SCMR 80), Malik Umar Aslam v. Mrs.

Sumaira Malik and others (2014 SCMR 45), Sadiq Ali

Memon v. Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I and others (2013

SCMR 1246), Abdul Ghafoor Lehri v. Returning Officer, PB-29,

NaseerabadII and others (2013 SCMR 1271) and Imtiaz Ahmed

Lali v. Ghulam Muhammad Lali (PLD 2007 SC 369). He also

maintained that the case in hand involves enforcement of the

Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 9, 14, 18, 23 and 24 of

the Constitution besides attracting Articles 2A and 4 of the

Constitution and that the matter is undeniably of great public

importance sufficiently attracting the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

25. Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC appearing for the petitioner in

Constitution Petition No. 3 of 2017 argued that respondent No. 1 in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 (who is respondent No. 4 in

Constitution Petition No. 3 of 2017) may be disqualified under

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution because he concealed property,

made a false declaration in the nomination papers filed in the

general elections held in the year 2013 and evaded wealth-tax and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 32
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

income-tax by failing to disclose his properties in London.

Referring to the case of Workers' Party Pakistan through Akhtar

Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others v. Federation of

Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 2012 SC 681) he pointed out that in

that case this Court had adverted to different definitions of

Honesty and had held that the question of honesty could be

decided on the basis of evidence or even with reference to

conduct of a person.

26. Referring to the speech made by respondent No. 1 in the

National Assembly on May 16, 2016 Mr. Asif pointed out that

according to respondent No. 1 Ittefaq Foundries was returned to

the family in the year 1980, it became profitable in the year 1983

and in the year 1985 many more factories had been established by

the family without disclosing the actual funds becoming available.

According to the learned counsel no source of funds for setting up

the factory in Dubai had been disclosed in that speech. He

maintained that the factory in Dubai was statedly sold in the year

1980 for 33.37 million Dirhams and then the factory in Jeddah

was statedly sold in June 2005 for 64 million Riyals (about 17

million US Dollars) but no money trail or banking transaction in

that regard had been shown by respondent No. 1. He also

highlighted that in that speech respondent No. 1 had completely

suppressed any information about any investment by his family in

real estate business in Qatar or acquisition of the four properties

in London in the name of one of his sons. While referring to

different speeches made by respondent No. 1 he pointed out that

contradictory stands had been taken by the said respondent

regarding the sources of funds and the routes through which such

funds had been channeled for acquisition of the relevant properties

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 33
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and assets and such contradictions had raised serious doubts

about bona fide of his explanations.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the

case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah and others v. General Pervez Musharraf

Chief Executive of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 SC 869) wherein

the submissions made on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan had

been noted and in those submissions the judgment of the High

Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, London dated November

05, 1999, placing of caution on the relevant four properties in

London and lifting of that caution upon satisfaction of the decree

for about 34 million US Dollars had been mentioned. According to

the learned counsel for the petitioner no source of funds for

satisfaction of that decree had been disclosed by respondent No. 1

and satisfaction of that decree by the said respondents family and

lifting of caution on the said properties clearly established a direct

connection between those properties and the respondents family

in the year 2000.

28. Mr. Asif further argued that acquisition of the relevant four

properties in London had been admitted by respondent No. 1 and

his children, possession of those properties had not been denied

and it was always maintained by them that the entire record in

that respect was available but no such record had been produced

before this Court. According to the learned counsel the initial onus

of proof on the petitioners, thus, stood discharged and a heavier

onus of proof shifted to respondent No. 1 and his children to

explain that the said properties had been acquired through

legitimate resources and lawful means but they had completely

failed to discharge that onus of proof. He maintained that a fact

admitted by a party may not be proved and that the onus of proof
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 34
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

in such cases shifts to the person who admits ownership or

possession of the property in issue. He referred in this regard to

the provisions of Articles 30, 53, 114 and 122 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order, 1984.

29. The learned counsel for the petitioner went on to argue that

the privilege in connection with a speech in the National Assembly

contemplated by the provisions of Article 66 of the Constitution is

not absolute and in support of that argument he referred to the

case of Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and

others (PLD 1998 SC 823). He also referred to the provisions of

Article 5(2) of the Constitution and to the oath of a Member of the

National Assembly (Article 65) and of the Prime Minister (Article

91(5)) prescribed by the Constitution according to which he has to

conduct himself honestly in all situations. In the context of Article

66 of the Constitution he pointed out that the Order of the Day for

the National Assembly on May 16, 2016 did not mention any
speech to be made by respondent No. 1 as the Prime Minister and

that no such speech was a part of the agenda of the day. He

maintained that although the speech made by respondent No. 1 on

that day was something said in the proceedings of the National

Assembly yet for the purposes of the privilege contemplated by

Article 66 of the Constitution the speech of respondent No. 1 had

to be relevant to the matter before the National Assembly and he

referred to Rule 31 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of

Business in the National Assembly, 2007. He pointed out Rule 50

of the said Rules dealing with classes of business and Rule 51

according to which a Tuesday is a private members day and May

16, 2016 was a Tuesday. According to him the Speaker of the

National Assembly ought not to have allowed respondent No. 1 to

make a speech in the National Assembly on that day on a matter

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 35
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

which was purely personal to him and if such speech was in fact

allowed to be made then it was not a part of the proceedings of the

National Assembly and, therefore, no privilege under Article 66 of

the Constitution could be claimed for such speech. In the context

of the privilege under Article 66 of the Constitution he also relied

upon the case of Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD

1975 SC 383) and referred to an article written by Dr. Ken Coghill

captioned as Why Parliamentary Privilege Matters.

30. Mr. Asif also argued that sanctity is attached to proceedings

of the Parliament but by lying before the National Assembly

respondent No. 1 had breached that sanctity as well. Regarding

sanctity of the Parliament he referred to the cases of Nawabzada

Iftikhar Ahmad Khan Bar v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad

and others (PLD 2010 SC 817) and Muhammad Rizwan

Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828). He pointed out

that in his speech in the National Assembly respondent No. 1 had

stated that the entire record pertaining to setting up and sale of

the factories in Dubai and Jeddah as well as the record pertaining

to acquisition of the four properties in London was available and

would be produced before any forum inquiring into the matter but

no such record had been produced before this Court. He pointed

out that respondent No. 1 had also stated before the National

Assembly that no privilege or immunity would be claimed by him

but before this Court the privilege under Article 66 of the

Constitution had been claimed on his behalf. Referring to the oath

of office of the Prime Minister he highlighted that respondent No. 1

had sworn that he would discharge his functions honestly and that

he would not allow his personal interest to influence his official

conduct but in his speech he had expressly stated that as the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 36
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

matter pertained to his family, therefore, he felt obliged to explain

the matter.

31. On the issue of the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution Mr. Asif referred to the cases of

Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

2011 SC 997), Workers' Party Pakistan through Akhtar Hussain,

Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan

and 2 others (PLD 2012 SC 681), Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and

others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774),

Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,

Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132),

Watan Party and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

2012 SC 292) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) through Khawaja

Muhammad Asif, M.N.A. and others v. Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others (PLD 2007 SC 642).

He maintained that in an appropriate case this Court may also

record evidence so as to ascertain a fact and in that regard he

referred to the case of Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar

Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army

Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1).

32. Sheikh Ahsan-ud-Din, ASC also briefly addressed arguments

on behalf of the petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 3 of 2017

and maintained that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article

184(3) of the Constitution is inquisitorial in nature and in an

appropriate case this Court may inquire into a fact itself or may get

it inquired into or investigated through an appropriate commission,

body or agency before reaching a conclusion in the matter. On the

issue of respondent No. 6 being a dependent of respondent No. 1

he referred to different definitions of the word dependent. With

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 37
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

reference to the jurisprudence developed in respect of the

provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. he maintained that the speech

made by respondent No. 1 in the National Assembly was

substantially untrue and, therefore, the same had to be treated as

false in toto. He lastly argued that the statements of the gentleman

from Qatar brought on the record of this case were nothing but an

afterthought.

33. At the outset Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC appearing for

Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, respondent No. 1

in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 and respondent No. 4 in

Constitution Petitions No. 30 of 2016 and 3 of 2017, submitted

that respondent No. 1s name did not appear in the Panama Papers

in any capacity whatsoever, no allegation was leveled against him

therein and, thus, he did not have to answer for anything

connected with the said issue. The learned counsel, however,

hastened to add that some issues had been raised through the

present petitions concerning respondent No. 1s children and in

respect of some speeches made by him and, thus, the said

respondent felt obliged to offer some explanations in that regard

and to make submissions on some legal aspects relevant to the

present petitions.

34. Regarding the speeches made by respondent No. 1 after

leakage of the Panama Papers Mr. Khan maintained that no false

statement had been made by respondent No. 1 in such speeches

and the said speeches did not contain anything which could be

termed as a misstatement or a lie. According to him there could be

some omissions in the said speeches which could be inadvertent or

the fora at which those speeches had been made were not the fora

obliging the respondent to make full disclosures. He maintained

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 38
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that in those speeches only a broad overview of the familys

business and assets had been presented by the respondent which

business was initially set up and commenced by the respondents

father in the year 1937, prior to the respondents birth, and his

father remained incharge of the expanding business till his demise

in the year 2004. Mr. Khan submitted that in those speeches

respondent No. 1 was not swearing an itemized affidavit or a

petition and, thus, precision or correctness of the things stated in

those speeches ought not to be judged on that standard. He

emphasized that respondent No. 1 had no connection with the

factory in Dubai, the factory in Jeddah or the relevant apartments

in London and, therefore, some details regarding those properties

might not be known to him at the time of making the relevant

speeches. Mr. Khan contended that respondent No. 1 was not

responsible for his childrens businesses. He also stressed that

some interviews given by others could not be utilized to contradict

respondent No. 1 so as to be made a basis for his disqualification

from membership of the Parliament because it had not been

established before this Court as to who was right and who was

wrong. He added that an inadvertent omission is to be treated

differently from a deliberate suppression. Referring to the

provisions of sections 78(3), 82 and 99 of the Representation of the

People Act, 2006 Mr. Khan submitted that in the electoral laws of

the country making of a false statement or a declaration is a

cognizable offence and unless there is a prosecution and recording

of a conviction on the basis of such an allegation no court can

issue a declaration which may be made a basis of a disqualification

under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. He also referred to the

case of Aftab Shaban Mirani v. President of Pakistan and others

(1998 SCMR 1863) for maintaining that a mere press statement

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 39
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

made by a person cannot be made a basis for disqualifying him

even if making of such statement is not denied by him.

35. Mr. Khan also argued that the bar for disqualification under

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is higher than the bar for

disqualification under section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the

People Act, 1976 because for the constitutional disqualification a

prior declaration by a court of law is required whereas the said

requirement is not there for the statutory disqualification. In

support of this argument he referred to the cases of Muhammad

Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar and others (2016

SCMR 1), Malik Umar Aslam v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others

(2014 SCMR 45), Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam and

others (PLD 2013 SC 179), Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Federation

of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Law Justice and Parliamentary

Affairs and others (2013 SCMR 1328), Abdul Ghafoor Lehri v.

Returning Officer, PB-29, NaseerabadII and others (2013 SCMR

1271), Allah Dino Khan Bhayo v. Election Commission of Pakistan,

Islamabad and others (2013 SCMR 1655), Mian Najeeb-ud-Din

Owasi and another v. Amir Yar Waran and others (PLD 2013 SC

482), Mudassar Qayyum Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and others (2011

SCMR 80), Haji Nasir Mehmood v. Mian Imran Masood and others

(PLD 2010 SC 1089), Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan Bar v. Chief

Election Commissioner Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 SC 817),

Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC

828), Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Fida Hussain Dero and others

(PLD 2004 SC 452), Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal

(PLD 2010 SC 1066), Muhammad Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan

Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC 97), General (R.) Pervez

Musharraf v. Election Commission of Pakistan and another (2013

CLC 1461), Gohar Nawaz Sindhu v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 40
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and others (PLD 2014 Lahore 670) and Ishaq Khan Khakwani and

others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2015 SC

275). Referring to the cases of Rana Aftab Ahmad

Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066) and Muhammad

Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC

97) Mr. Khan maintained that affirmative evidence is required to

establish dishonesty for the purposes of electoral disqualification

and that the threshold has to be very high for disqualifying a

person on the basis of qualifications which are obscure and vague.

He also contended that no declaration about honesty can be made

without there being a prior adjudication made by a court on the

subject and in this regard he relied upon the cases of Suo Motu

Case No. 4 of 2010 (Contempt proceedings against Syed Yousaf

Raza Gillani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan) (PLD 2012 SC 553) and

Muhammad Azhar Siddique and others v. Federation of Pakistan

and others (PLD 2012 SC 660). He pointed out that in the cases of

Umar Ahmad Ghumman v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD

2002 Lahore 521) and Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of

Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089)

some persons were declared to be disqualified in exercise of the

constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of holding dual

nationality in the absence of a prior adjudication in that regard but

in those cases the facts were either admitted/undisputed or the

same were conveniently ascertainable with minimum inquiry. He

also referred to the case of Sadiq Ali Memon v. Returning Officer,

NA-237, Thatta-I and others (2013 SCMR 1246) wherein dual

nationality was not disputed and was in fact admitted. He also

referred to the case of Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Mr. Imran Khan

(Reference No. 1 of 2007) wherein Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, one of

the present petitioners, had successfully maintained before the

Election Commission of Pakistan that post-election disputes fell

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 41
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

only under Article 63 and not under Article 62 of the Constitution.

It was, however, conceded by Mr. Khan that a decision of the

Election Commission of Pakistan is not binding upon this Court.

36. Adverting to the speech made by respondent No. 1 in the

National Assembly on May 16, 2016 Mr. Khan referred to Article

66(1) of the Constitution which reads as under:

66. (1) Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of

procedure of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), there shall be freedom
of speech in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and no member shall be
liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said
or any vote given by him in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), and no
person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under
the authority of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) of any report, paper,
votes or proceedings.

He relied upon the universally acknowledged concept of

parliamentary privilege recognized by the said provision of the

Constitution for maintaining that respondent No. 1 cannot be

liable to any proceedings in any court on the basis of any

statement made by him on the floor of the National Assembly. He

pointed out that the said privilege is subject to the Constitution

and the only provisions of the Constitution relevant to the issue

are those of Articles 68 and 204 placing restriction on discussing

conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in

the discharge of his duties and commission of contempt of court.

For highlighting various aspects of the concept of parliamentary

privilege Mr. Khan referred to the cases of Lahore Development

Authority through D. G. and others v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and

others (2015 SCMR 1739), Pakistan v. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani and

others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 397), Regina v. Chaytor (2011 UKSC 52),

[2011] 1 A.C. 684, Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD

1975 SC 383), United States v. Thomas F. Johnson (383 U.S. 169),

Gohar Nawaz Sindhu v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 42
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(PLD 2014 Lahore 670), A v. United Kingdom (35373/97) (2003) 36

E.H.R.R 51, Tej Kiran Jain and others v. M. Sanjiva Reddy and

others (AIR 1970 SC 1573), Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji and others

v. Punit Goala (AIR 1951 Calcutta 176), In the matter of Special

Reference No. 1 of 1964 (AIR 1965 SC 745), Wason, Ex parte (1868-

69) L.R. 4 Q.B. 573 and Richard William Prebble v. Television New

Zealand Ltd. (1995) 1 A.C. 321. He also read out parts of some

authoritative works and treatises on the subject and also referred

to some similar provisions of the Indian Constitution and their

interpretations by the courts of that country.

37. Mr. Khan pointed out that through these petitions

allegations have been leveled against respondent No. 1 regarding

evasion of tax on the sale proceeds of the factory in Dubai worth

about 9 million US Dollars; regarding late filing of Wealth

Statements for the years 2011 and 2012 (which allegation was not

pressed during the arguments); regarding the gifts of Rs.

31,700,000 by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 6 and of Rs.

19,459,440 by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 8 being sham

and not disclosed; and in respect of the gifts received by

respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 7 not having been treated as

income from other sources. According to him the said allegations

attract the provisions of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution and

section 99(1A)(t) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 but

in terms of the facts of the present case the disqualification

mentioned in those provisions is not relevant. He maintained that

the crucial factors for the said disqualification are default and

dues and it has already been clarified in the cases of National

Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. SAF textile Ltd. and another

(PLD 2014 SC 283), Messrs Summit Bank Limited through Manager

v. Qasim & Co. through Muhammad Alam and another (2015 SCMR
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 43
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

1341) and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Sanaullah

and others (PLD 1988 SC 67) that in the absence of any

adjudication there cannot be any dues and, hence, no default can

be alleged. According to him no determination had been made and

no finding had been recorded by any tax authority against

respondent No. 1 in respect of any tax due. He also clarified that

respondent No. 1 was neither a Director nor a shareholder of the

factory in Dubai. Mr. Khan went on to submit that the Wealth-Tax

Act, 1963 was repealed in the year 2003, at the time of repeal of

that law no proceeding was pending against respondent No. 1 and,

therefore, at this stage no officer or machinery is available to

determine any concealment, etc. by the said respondent rendering

the issue dead. With reference to the record placed before this

Court he pointed out that the gifts made by respondent No. 1 in

favour of respondents No. 6 and 8 were actually disclosed by

respondent No. 1 in his Wealth Statements and such payments

had been made through cheques which had also been placed on

the record. As regards the gifts made by respondent No. 7 in favour

of respondent No. 1 it was submitted by him that respondent No. 7

had a National Tax Number in Pakistan and he was a non-resident

Pakistani and, therefore, gifts made by him in favour of his father

could not be treated as income from other sources as is evident

from the provisions of section 39(3) read with sections 81, 111,

114, 116, 120, 120(2) of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001. He also

pointed out that by virtue of the provisions of sections 122(2) and

122(5) of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001 finality stood attached

to the matter after five years of commencement of the assessment

order even if there had been any concealment. In support of the

submissions made above he relied upon the cases of Commissioner

Income-Tax Company Zone-II, Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering

(Pvt.) Limited (2002 SCMR 527), Income-Tax Officer and another v.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 44
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

M/s. Chappal Builders (1993 SCMR 1108), Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and

Justice, Islamabad v. Sindh High Court Bar Association through

President and another (PLD 2012 SC 1067), Assistant Director,

Intelligence and Investigation, Karachi v. M/s B. R. Herman and

others (PLD 1992 SC 485) and Re State of Norways Application

(No.1) (1989) 1 All ER 661.

38. On the issue of respondent No. 6 allegedly being a dependent

of respondent No. 1 Mr. Khan argued that the nomination papers

filed by respondent No. 1 for election to NA-120 before the general

elections held in the country in the year 2013 had correctly been

filled, no misstatement was made by him in the relevant solemn

affirmation regarding the list of his dependents and the Wealth

Statement filed by him for the year 2011 was quite correct. He

explained that in Column No. 12 of the said Wealth Statement

some land purchased by respondent No. 1 in the name of

respondent No. 6 had been shown but actually respondent No. 1

was not his dependent and a mention to her had been made in

Column No. 12 only because in the relevant form there was no

other column for disclosure of the land purchased. He further

clarified that respondent No. 6 had not been mentioned by

respondent No. 1 in Column No. 18 of the same form in respect of

dependents. He also pointed out that later on the income-tax form

was amended and a new Column No. 14 was introduced therein for

Assets in others name. Mr. Khan drew our attention towards a

clarification issued by a reputed firm of chartered accountants

wherein it was asserted and opined that the land purchased by

respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 6 had been shown

in Column No. 12 of the relevant form because the said form did

not contain any other column wherein the above mentioned

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 45
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

purchase by the father in the name of his daughter could be

shown. According to Mr. Khan showing the relevant purchase by

respondent No. 1, be it in a wrong column, established bona fide of

the said respondent and that was surely better than suppressing

the said information. He emphatically maintained that respondent

No. 6 was a married lady having grown up children, she was a part

of a joint family living in different houses situated in the same

compound, she contributed towards some of the expenses

incurred, submitted her independent tax returns, owned sizeable

property in her own name, was capable of surviving on her own

and she could not be termed a dependent merely because she

periodically received gifts from her father and brothers. He drew

our attention toward a chart showing the details of the agricultural

land owned by respondent No. 6 and referred to the cases of M. A.

Faheemuddin Farhum v. Managing Director/Member (Water)

WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others (2001 SCMR 1955), In re

Ball. Decd. (1947) 1 Ch. 228 and In Re Badens Deed Trusts (No.2)

(1973) Ch. 9 wherein the term dependent had been interpreted.

He clarified that as far as some foreign judgments on the issue of

dependence were concerned they were merely of persuasive value

but where interpretation of some foreign law is involved there the

foreign law is to be formally proved as a question of fact, as held in

the case of Atlantic Steamers Supply Company v. M. V. Titisee and

others (PLD 1993 SC 88). He also referred to the definition of

Benamidar contained in the National Accountability Ordinance,

1999 and to the cases of Abdul Majeed and others v. Amir

Muhammad and others (2005 SCMR 577), Ghani-ur-

Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 SC

1144) and Mst. Asia Bibi v. Dr. Asif Ali Khan and others (PLD 2011

SC 829) wherein the said term had been interpreted. In view of the

interpretations of the terms dependent and Benamidar in the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 46
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

said precedent cases Mr. Khan argued that respondent No. 6 could

not be treated or accepted as a dependent of respondent No. 1. He

also maintained that very clear proof of dependence of one person

on another is required before a court of law and in that connection

he relied upon the cases of Amir Bibi through legal

heirs v. Muhammad Khurshid and others (2003 SCMR 1261) and

Ch. Muhammad Siddique and another v. Mst. Faiz Mai and others

(PLD 2012 SC 211). Mr. Khan emphasized that the alleged

dependence of respondent No. 6 on respondent No. 1, even if

established, was relevant to the year 2011 and not to the year 2013

when nomination papers were filed by respondent No. 1 for

contesting an election in the general elections. He also pointed out

that the issue of respondent No. 6 allegedly being a dependent of

respondent No. 1 is already pending before the Election

Commission of Pakistan and, therefore, he submitted that this

Court may withhold any comment on that issue in the present

proceedings.

39. Mr. Khan categorically submitted that respondent No. 1 did

not question competence and maintainability of the present

petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution because they

involved questions of public importance with reference to many

Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the

Constitution but he maintained that the scope of jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is limited and in

exercise of such jurisdiction a person may not be disqualified from

membership of the Parliament on the basis of disputed or

unverified facts. In support of that submission he relied upon the

cases of Khuda Bakhsh v. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali (1997 SCMR

561), Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), Pakistan Muslim

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 47
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

League (N) through Khawaja Muhammad Asif, M.N.A. and others v.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and

others (PLD 2007 SC 642), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly

Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2009 SCMR 1279), Islamic Republic of Pakistan

through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Kashmir Affairs,

Islamabad v. Abdul Wali Khan, M.N.A., Former President of Defunct

National Awami Party (PLD 1976 SC 57), Begum Nusrat

Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1977

SC 657), Wattan Party through President v. Federation of Pakistan

through Cabinet Committee of Privatization, Islamabad (PLD 2006

SC 697), Muhammad Saeed and 4 others v. Election Petitions

Tribunal, Mehr Muhammad Arif, Ghulam Haider, West Pakistan

Government and others (PLD 1957 SC 91), Saeed Hassan v. Pyar

Ali and 7 others (PLD 1976 SC 6), Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and

another v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 388),

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD

2000 SC 77) and many other cases. In this context he also

maintained that the book by Mr. Raymond W. Baker titled

Capitalisms Achilles Heel relied upon by the learned counsel for

one of the petitioners was not evidence but was merely an opinion

of the author. He also argued that newspaper reports were not

sufficient proof of the facts stated therein, as observed in the cases

of Messr Balagamwallah Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory,

Karachi v. Lalchand (PLD 1961 Karachi 1), Aftab Shaban Mirani v.

President of Pakistan and others (1998 SCMR 1863) and

Muhammad Azam v. Khalid Javed Gillani, etc. (1981 SCMR 734).

He pointed out that a Writ Petition was already pending before the

Lahore High Court, Lahore on the same subject and three petitions

were also pending before the Election Commission of Pakistan

seeking disqualification of respondent No. 1 on the basis of the

same issues and, therefore, this Court ought not to interfere in the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 48
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

matter at such a stage through exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

40. Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC represented respondent No. 6

namely Mariam Safdar (daughter of respondent No. 1), respondent

No. 9 namely Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Safdar (husband of

respondent No. 6 and son-in-law of respondent No. 1) and

respondent No. 10 namely Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Dar (a Samdhi of

respondent No. 1 and the incumbent Finance Minister of Pakistan)

before us and at the outset he adopted all the arguments of Mr.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC representing respondent No. 1. He

also pointed out in the beginning that no allegation had been

leveled against respondent No. 6 in Constitution Petition No. 29 of

2016 but relief had been prayed therein regarding her

disqualification under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution. He

further pointed out that in Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016

and also in Constitution Petition No. 3 of 2017 respondents No. 6,

9 and 10 had not been arrayed as parties and no relief had been

prayed against them in those petitions. He submitted that the

questions to be answered by him were in respect of respondent No.

9s tax returns, the assets of his wife, i.e. respondent No. 6, the

asserted dependence of respondent No. 6 on respondent No. 1 and

the allegations leveled against respondent No. 10.

41. Mr. Hamid pointed out that respondents No. 6 and 9 had

placed on the record of these petitions copies of the tax returns of

respondent No. 6 for the years 2011 and 2012, the tax returns of

respondent No. 1 for the years 2011 and 2012, an opinion of a

reputed tax consultancy firm about correctness of the tax returns

filed by respondent No. 1, the license granted for setting up a

factory in Dubai, the lease deed for obtaining land in Dubai for
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 49
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

setting up a factory, the land rent agreement executed in Dubai,

the tripartite sale agreement in respect of sale of 75% shares of the

factory in Dubai, the shares sale certificate pertaining to sale of

the remaining 25% shares of the factory in Dubai, a photograph

taken at the time of inauguration of the factory in Dubai, two

affidavits of Mr. Tariq Shafi who was the Benamidar owner of the

factory in Dubai, incorporation certificates of Nescoll Limited and

Nielsen Enterprises Limited, all the share certificates in favour of

respondent No. 7, a trust deed qua a company named Coomber, a

trust deed dated 02/04.02.2006, two statements of a gentleman

from Qatar, income-tax returns of respondent No. 6 from the year

2011 to the year 2016, income-tax returns of respondent No. 6s

grandmother from the year 2011 to the year 2016, wealth

statement of respondent No. 1 for the year 2010 showing

agricultural land in the ownership of respondent No. 6, bank

statements of respondent No. 1 showing that all the relevant

transactions were carried out through banks, SRO No. 84(I)/2015

amending the income-tax return form and the nomination papers

of respondent No. 1 showing that respondent No. 1 lived in his

mothers house.

42. Mr. Hamid maintained that respondent No. 6s alleged

beneficial ownership of the apartments in London was a disputed

question of fact and the allegation leveled in that regard was based

upon forged documents produced by the petitioners. He relied

upon a book written by Dr. B. R. Sharma on the law relating to

handwriting, etc. and also upon the case of Syed

Hafeezuddin v. Abdul Razzaq and others (PLD 2016 SC 79) on the

issue of forgery of signatures. He argued that in cases involving

public interest litigation the petitioner must come to the court with

clean hands and with concrete facts which are verifiable and in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 50
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that regard he referred to the cases of Muhammad Shafique Khan

Sawati v. Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of

Water and Power, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 851), Syed

Zafar Ali Shah and others v. General Pervez Musharraf Chief

Executive of Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 SC 869), Echo West

International (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. Government of Punjab through

Secretary and 4 others (PLD 2009 SC 406), Moulvi Iqbal Haider

v. Capital Development Authority and others (PLD 2006 SC 394),

Javed Ibrahim Paracha v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

2004 SC 482), T. N. Godavarman Thirimulpad v. Union of India and

Ors (AIR 2006 SC 1774), Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary and Ors

(AIR 1993 SC 892), S. P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors (AIR

1982 SC 149), Syed Hafeezuddin v. Abdul Razzaq and others (PLD

2016 SC 79) and M. A. Faheemuddin Farhum v. Managing

Director/Member (Water) WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others

(2001 SCMR 1955). He categorically submitted that respondent No.

6 was a mere trustee of one of the two offshore companies on

behalf of respondent No. 7 and she had no other interest in the

said companies or the properties owned by them.

43. On the issue of the alleged dependence of respondent No. 6

on respondent No. 1 Mr. Hamid pointed out that there was no

definition of dependent provided in the Income-Tax Ordinance,

2001, section 2(33) of the said Ordinance provided for a minor

child but section 90(8)(b) of that Ordinance provided that a minor

child did not include a married daughter. He also pointed out that

section 116(1)(b) of the said Ordinance referred to other

dependents without defining them. He also referred in that

context to section 116(2) of that Ordinance pertaining to a wealth

statement, Rule 36 of the Income-Tax Rules, 2002 and Part IV of

the Second Schedule containing the form of Wealth-Tax (amended

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 51
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

on 26.8.2015) highlighting that assets in others names were

contemplated in the said provisions but such others had not been

defined. He further referred to the Representation of the People

Act, 1976 and pointed out that even the said Act did not contain

any definition of the word dependent although the word

dependents found a mention in section 12(2)(d) of the said Act. He

also referred to section 14(3)(c) of that Act pertaining to scrutiny of

nomination papers and to section 14(5) of the said Act relevant to

an appeal in that regard and then drew our attention towards a

form captioned Statement of Assets and Liabilities provided in the

Representation of the People (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 and

pointed out that in the verification provided in that form the word

dependents is mentioned. He also read out section 5(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in the Explanation whereof the

word dependents is mentioned without defining or elaborating the

same. In the absence of any statutory definition of the word

dependent Mr. Hamid referred to the case of M. A. Faheemuddin

Farhum v. Managing Director/Member (Water) WAPDA, WAPDA

House, Lahore and others (2001 SCMR 1955) and Blacks Law

Dictionary in order to explain as to what the word dependent

meant. In that backdrop he vehemently argued that respondent

No. 6 was not a dependent of respondent No. 1 at the time of filing

of nomination papers by him on March 31, 2013. He maintained

that the previous financial year had ended on June 30, 2012

whereas tax details of respondent No. 6 for the last 5 years till

June 30, 2012 provided to this Court clearly showed that she was

a lady of means and not dependent on respondent No. 1

financially. He pointed out that through a sale deed dated October

13, 2010 land worth Rs. 47,52,000/- had been purchased by

respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 6, through a sale

deed dated December 14, 2010 land worth Rs. 34,78,750/- had
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 52
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been purchased by respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent

No. 6, through a sale deed dated March 01, 2011 land worth Rs.

22,76,000/- had been purchased by respondent No. 1 in the name

of respondent No. 6 and through a sale deed dated February 07,

2011 land worth Rs. 1,33,93,000/- had been purchased by

respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 6 and all the

above mentioned sales had been registered on April 14, 2011. It

was, thus, maintained by Mr. Hamid that, irrespective of the fact

that the above mentioned assets had been gifted to her by her

father, respondent No. 6 was for all intents and purposes a lady

owning considerable property and, therefore, she could not be said

to be dependent on her father for her sustenance or survival.

According to him, a lady owning property worth about Rs. 20

crores could not be termed as dependent on anybody. He went on

to maintain that all the tax returns and statements submitted by

respondent No. 6 had been accepted by the concerned taxation

authorities and the same had never been challenged and,

therefore, after a lapse of the five years statutory period such

returns and statements could not be reopened or questioned at any

subsequent stage.

44. Adverting to the case against respondent No. 9 Mr. Hamid

conceded that the said respondent had not filed any tax return

before the year 2014 and that a National Tax Number had been

issued in his name for the first time on January 28, 2014. He also

admitted that for contesting the elections in the year 2013

respondent No. 9 had submitted the wealth statement and the tax

return of his wife (respondent No. 6) with his nomination papers.

While defending respondent No. 9 Mr. Hamid referred to sections

114 and 182 of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001 and also pointed

out that the same issue was already pending before the Election
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 53
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Commission of Pakistan through five different petitions filed before

it by different persons and also before the Lahore High Court,

Lahore through a Writ Petition filed before it by an interested

person. He maintained that respondent No. 9 was just a member of

the National Assembly against whom no relief had been prayed for

in these petitions and respondent No. 6 did not even hold a public

office and, therefore, the matters against them did not involve any

question of public importance with reference to enforcement of the

Fundamental Rights conferred by the Constitution so as to attract

the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution.

45. As far as respondent No. 10 namely Mr. Muhammad Ishaq

Dar (a Samdhi of respondent No. 1 and the incumbent Finance

Minister of Pakistan) is concerned Mr. Hamid pointed out that

respondent No. 1 and some members of his family, etc. had been

implicated as accused persons in FIR No. 12 of 1994 registered at

Police Station Federal Investigation Agency, SIU, Islamabad on

November 10, 1994 and also in FIR No. 13 of 1994 registered at

Police Station Federal Investigation Agency, SIU, Islamabad on

November 12, 1994 wherein various allegations, including those of

money laundering, had been leveled but after submission of the

Challans in those cases Writ Petitions No. 12172 and 12173 of

1997 filed by a nephew of respondent No. 1 were allowed by the

Lahore High Court, Lahore on May 27, 1997, the Challans were

quashed and the accused persons were acquitted. He informed

that respondent No. 10 was not an accused person in those

criminal cases and the Lahore High Court, Lahore had decided the

above mentioned Writ Petitions at a time when respondent No. 1

was the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the said decision of the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 54
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

High Court had not been challenged before this Court by the

Federal Investigation Agency or the State.

46. Mr. Hamid then referred to Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by

the National Accountability Bureau before an Accountability Court

against respondents No. 1 and 10 and some others with allegations

of money laundering, etc. to the tune of Rs. 1242.732 million (over

Rs. 1.2 billion) and in that Reference reliance had also been placed

upon a judicial confession made by respondent No. 10 before a

Magistrate First Class, Lahore on April 25, 2000. He pointed out

that initially respondent No. 10 was an accused person in the said

Reference but on the basis of his judicial confession the said

respondent was granted pardon by the Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau and was not treated as an accused person

in the final Reference wherein he had been cited as a prosecution

witness. It was alleged in that Reference that respondent No. 10

was instrumental in laundering of 14.886 million US Dollars upon

the instructions and for the benefit of respondent No. 1 by opening

fake foreign currency accounts in different banks in the names of

others. He pointed out that Writ Petition No. 2617 of 2011 filed

before the Lahore High Court, Lahore in connection with that

Reference was allowed by a learned Division Bench of the said

Court on December 03, 2012 and the said Reference was quashed

through a unanimous judgment but the learned Judges disagreed

with each other over permissibility of reinvestigation of the matter

whereupon the matter was referred to a learned Referee Judge who

held on March 11, 2014 that reinvestigation of the case was not

permissible. Even that judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore

was not challenged by the National Accountability Bureau or the

State before this Court and incidentally respondent No. 1 was

again the Prime Minister of Pakistan at that time. He also

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 55
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

submitted that a Writ Petition challenging respondent No. 10s

election to the Senate on account of making of the above

mentioned confessional statement by him was dismissed in limine

by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad because the writ-

petitioner had not appended a copy of the confessional statement

with the Writ Petition filed by him. He went on to submit that the

allegations leveled against respondent No. 10 were over twenty-five

years old and such allegations pertained to the year 1992 when the

said respondent did not hold any public office. He further

submitted that in the Challans quashed in the year 1997

respondent No. 10 was not an accused person and quashing of

Reference No. 5 of 2000 had become final by now attracting the

principle of autrefois acquit recognized by Article 13 of the

Constitution, section 403, Cr.P.C. and section 26 of the General

Clauses Act.

47. While representing respondents No. 7 and 8 namely Mr.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif, both sons of

respondent No. 1, Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC submitted at the

outset that by comparison of their verbal or written statements

respondents No. 7 and 8 are not to be treated as the standard to

judge correctness and honesty of respondent No. 1 because it

could well be that respondent No. 1 is correct and honest in the

matter and respondents No. 7 and 8 are not. He pointed out that

no relief has directly been prayed for against respondents No. 7 and

8 in these petitions. He also made a categorical statement that

respondent No. 7 is the exclusive owner of the relevant four

properties in London since the year 2006. He maintained that it

was not possible to determine facts stretching over a period of

about fifty years and that on the basis of the available record

respondent No. 1 or his children could not be held culpable. He

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 56
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

argued that in cases of corruption, and particularly those under

section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the

initial burden of proof is on the prosecution and then the burden

of proof shifting to the accused person is only to explain to the

satisfaction of the court and such burden is discharged if the

offered defence falls in the realm of possibilities. He place reliance

in that regard on the cases of Khalid Aziz v. The State (2011 SCMR

136) and The State v. Anwar Saifullah Khan (PLD 2016 SC 276). He

maintained that no wrongdoing on the part of respondent No. 1

and his children had been established in this case and, thus, the

defence offered by them is to accepted in toto in terms of the

principle of criminal law reiterated in the case of State v.

Muhammad Hanif and 5 others (1992 SCMR 2047). He emphasized

that the explanations offered by respondent No. 7 do fall in the

realm of possibilities and, therefore, the same ought to be

accepted.

48. Mr. Raja submitted that the relevant record in respect of

setting up and sale of the factories in Dubai and Jeddah had been

made available before this Court which sales had fetched 12

million Dirhams and 20,630,000 Riyals (about 17 million US

Dollars). With reference to an affidavit of Mr. Abdul Raman

Muhammad Abdullah Kayed Ahli and two affidavits of Mr. Tariq

Shafi he maintained that receipt of 12 million Dirhams as sale

proceeds of the remaining shares of the factory in Dubai and

delivery of the said amount in cash in installments to Mr. Fahad

Bin Jassim of Qatar (elder brother of Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim) had

been established which money later on became the source of funds

for acquisition of the four properties in London.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 57
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

49. Mr. Raja stated that the family of respondent No. 1 has been

in possession of the properties in London since the years

1993/1996 because respondents No. 7 and 8 were studying in

England at that time. He submitted that apart from the judgment

and decree of the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division,

London passed and issued in the year 1999 there was no link

established between respondent No. 1s children and ownership of

those properties before the year 2006. In that respect he referred to

an affidavit of Mr. Shezi Nackvi (a representative of the decree

holder Al-Towfeek Company) dated January 13, 2017 according to

which no meeting or correspondence had ever taken place between

respondent No. 1 and any representative of the decree holder till

the decree was settled upon payment of 8 million US Dollars. He

pointed out that the loan obtained from Al-Towfeek Company stood

duly mentioned in the relevant Financial Statement of Hudabiya

Paper Mills Limited of which some of respondent No. 1s children

were Directors at that time. He also pointed out that according to

the written statement of Mr. Shezi Nackvi filed before the High

Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, London an attachment

order in respect of the relevant four properties in London had been

sought by the decree holder on the basis of a report prepared by

Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the Federal Investigation Agency of

Pakistan whereas, according to Mr. Raja, Mr. A. Rehman Malik had

prepared that report at a time when he was under suspension and

he had compiled that report on his own and, thus, the report had

no legal standing.

50. Giving the background of the relevant four properties in

London Mr. Raja submitted that Al-Thani family of Qatar had

acquired the two offshore companies owning the said properties in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 58
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the years 1993, 1995 and 1996 and in January 2006 the Bearer

Share Certificates of the two companies were handed over by Al-

Thani family to a representative of respondent No. 7. He added that

upon instructions of respondent No. 7 Minerva Holdings Limited

took over management of the two offshore companies on January

26, 2006, Arrina Limited was entrusted with management service

for the two companies on February 06, 2006, JPCA Corporate

Accountants took over administration of the two companies from

Minerva Holdings Limited and thereafter two of the relevant

properties were mortgaged with Deutche Bank (Suisse) SA on

September 02, 2008. He, however, went on to admit that the

information supplied by respondents No. 6 and 7 in respect of the

relevant four properties was incomplete.

51. Adverting to the laws of the British Virgin Islands vis--vis

companies and their ownership Mr. Raja informed that section 28

of the International Business Companies Act, 1984 provided for

registered shares and bearer shares and section 31 provided that a

bearer share was transferable by delivery of the certificate relating

to the share. He also referred to the Financial Services Commission

Act, 2001, the British Virgin Islands Business Companies Act,

2004 and an article on The BVI Bearer Shares Regime and went

on to inform that in July 2006 the bearer shares of the relevant

two companies were cancelled and registered shares were issued in

favour of Minerva Holdings Limited on behalf of respondent No. 7.

52. On the issue of the asserted dependence of respondent No. 6

on respondent No. 1 Mr. Raja maintained that no valid document

had been produced by the petitioners before this Court to establish

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 59
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

any proprietary interest of respondent No. 6 in the relevant four

properties in London and, therefore, there was hardly any question

of respondent No. 1 being declared disqualified on his stated failure

to disclose respondent No. 6 as his dependent or failure to declare

any property of respondent No. 6 as his property in his nomination

papers filed in the general elections held in the country in the year

2013 or in his tax returns.

53. As far as the speeches made by respondent No. 1 before the

nation and in the National Assembly were concerned Mr. Raja

maintained that the imperfections in the speeches did not

provide a valid basis for holding that an asserted fact or an

allegation about respondent No. 1 not being honest was proved.

54. Addressing the Court on the scope of determining a fact in

exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

Mr. Raja referred to the case of Suo Motu action regarding allegation

of business deal between Malik Riaz Hussain and Dr. Arsalan

Iftikhar attempting to influence the judicial process (PLD 2012 SC

664) wherein the scope of inquisitorial proceedings under Article

184(3) of the Constitution was discussed and in view of the object

of those suo motu proceedings the relevant statutory authorities

were activated under the supervision of this Court. On the said

subject he also referred to the cases of Muhammad Asghar

Khan v. Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff (PLD 2013

SC 1), Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others

(PLD 2011 SC 997), Moulvi Iqbal Haider and others v. Federation of

Pakistan through Secretary M/o Law and Justice and others (2013

SCMR 1683), General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 60
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Union (CBA) Khewra, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral

Development, Punjab, Lahore (1994 SCMR 2061), Ms. Shehla Zia

and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), Mehr Zulfiqar Ali Babu

and others v. Government of The Punjab and others (PLD 1997 SC

11) and Watan Party and others v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2012 SC 292). He also relied upon the case of Emperor

v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 Privy Council 18) to assert that

independence of an investigating agency and the investigative

process is as important and desirable as independence of the

judiciary. He pointed out that the said aspect was also emphasized

by this Court in the case of Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others

v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others (PLD 1994 SC 281).

Relying upon the case of State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others

(1992 SCMR 2047) he pointed out that in criminal cases the

statement of an accused person recorded under section 342,

Cr.P.C. has to be accepted or rejected in its entirety and, thus,

while exercising this Courts jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution in respect of a matter involving an alleged criminality

the inculpatory part of the statement cannot be separated from the

exculpatory part. Dilating upon meanings of the word declaration

in the context of Article 184(3) of the Constitution he submitted

that accusitory function cannot be resorted to before an

administrative tribunal and in that context he referred to the cases

of Jenkins v. McKeithen (395 U.S. 411 (1969)) and Hannah Et Al v.

Larche Et Al (363 U.S. 420 (1960)) but conceded that the said

judgments were not relevant to a declaration made under Article

184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan. He further argued that no

right of appeal was provided against a judgment delivered under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution and, therefore, extra care is

required to be taken while making a declaration under that

jurisdiction and for that submission he relied upon the cases of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 61
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v. Federation of Pakistan through

Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2001 SC 607),

Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. The General

Public (PLD 1989 SC 6) and Federation Of Pakistan through

Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs/Minority Affairs, Government

of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Mufti Iftikhar-ud-Din and another (2000

SCMR 1). He went on to maintain that no fishing or roving inquiry

can be made while exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution and he referred to the cases of

Jam Madad Ali v. Asghar Ali Junejo and others (2016 SCMR 251)

and Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan

and others (2012 SCMR 455) in support of that submission. With

reference to the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19A of

the Constitution he argued that the right to access to information

does not extend to gathering of information from private persons

and such right is relevant only where information already exists

and not where the right is asserted for creating information. He

lastly submitted that in exercise of this Courts jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution ordinarily no evidence is recorded

and no right of cross-examination of witnesses is available besides

the absence of any right of appeal and, therefore, in an appropriate

case it may be argued that rendering a finding of fact in exercise of

such jurisdiction may militate against the Fundamental Right

guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution regarding fair trial

and due process.

55. Respondent No. 2 namely Qamar Zaman Chaudhry,

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau appeared before the

Court in person on February 21, 2017 along with the learned

Prosecutor-General Accountability and he maintained that the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 62
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

National Accountability Bureau was cognizant of its duties and

responsibilities in connection with the issues arising out of the

Panama Papers but respondent No. 2 was waiting for the

regulators to look into the matter first. We repeatedly asked him

to elaborate as to who those regulators were and where did they

figure in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but he did

not even bother to respond to those questions and conveniently

kept quiet! When his attention was drawn towards the provisions of

section 18 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

according to which the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau

could take cognizance of such a matter on his own he simply

stated that he would take action in terms of the Ordinance. On

that occasion the Court wondered who the referred to regulators

could be because the same word had also been used in the two

statements of a gentleman from Qatar brought on the record of the

case by the children of respondent No. 1. When asked by the Court

as to whether he would consider challenging before this Court the

judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore quashing

Reference No. 5 of 2000 and barring reinvestigation into that

matter by the National Accountability Bureau or not he

categorically stated that at the relevant time he had decided not to

file any petition/appeal against that judgment and he had no

intention to do that at this stage either.

56. Respondent No. 5 namely Dr. Muhammad Irshad, Chairman,

Federal Board of Revenue appeared before this Court in person

along with his learned counsel on February 21, 2017 and apprised

the Court that after disclosures made through the Panama Papers

the Federal Board of Revenue approached the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs for access to the Panaman authorities for obtaining

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 63
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

information about the Pakistani citizens involved in the scam but it

did not receive any response and then notices were issued by the

Federal Board of Revenue on September 02, 2016 to 334 persons

located out of the 444 persons named in connection with that

scam through the print and electronic media. He informed that

only a few out of those 334 persons responded to the notices and

they included respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 herein. According to him

in her response dated November 21, 2016 respondent No. 6 denied

the allegations whereas through their response of the same date

respondents No. 7 and 8 maintained that they were Non-resident

Pakistanis and, thus, owning offshore companies by them did not

fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Board of Revenue. The

Chairman stated before the Court in categorical terms that no

further steps had been taken by him in the matter. Later on

through a miscellaneous application filed on February 28, 2017

respondent No. 5 placed an formation before this Court that on

February 22, 2017 notices had been issued to respondents No. 7

and 8 under section 176 of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001

requiring them to substantiate their claimed status of Non-resident

Pakistanis. The Court was also informed through the same

application that the Immigration authorities had also been

required by the Federal Board of Revenue to produce the travel

record of the said respondents during the period between the years

2006 and 2016. It was assured through the said application that

after receiving the necessary information from respondents No. 7

and 8 and the Immigration authorities the Federal Board of

Revenue would take further necessary action in the matter. It is

unfortunate that till passage of the final judgment of this case no

further information has been received by this Court from the

Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue regarding any progress made

in the matter at his end.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 64
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

57. Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, the learned Attorney-General for

Pakistan stated at the outset that although he had represented

respondent No. 1 and some members of his family in many cases

in the past before different courts of the country as a private

practitioner yet in the present case he was appearing as the

Attorney-General for Pakistan on Courts notice under Order

XXVII-A Rule 1, CPC and, therefore, he would be assisting this

Court in the present matter completely independently on some

jurisdictional and legal aspects involved. He straightaway conceded

that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and hear

these petitions and these petitions are maintainable under Article

184(3) of the Constitution but according to him the facts of the

case do not warrant any interference in the matter by this Court

through exercise of such jurisdiction. He pointed out that

Constitution Petition No. 35 of 2016 filed before this Court seeking

disqualification of one of the present petitioners from being a

member of the Parliament on somewhat similar grounds was

already pending before this Court and he was to assist this Court

in that matter also in the same capacity. He submitted that the

grey areas inherent in the constitutional disqualifications involved

in the present petitions have already been commented upon by this

Court in the case of Ishaq Khan Khakwani and others v. Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2015 SC 275).

According to him the case in hand was a unique case wherein the

forum chosen was this Court, the jurisdiction invoked was that

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and the main prayer made

was in the nature of a writ of quo warranto. He argued that it was

not the practice of this Court to entertain and proceed with such a

case involving election to the Parliament under its original

jurisdiction in the first instance and such issues were generally

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 65
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

entertained by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. He

maintained that a declaration made by this Court is to be binding

on all the other courts and tribunals in the country and, therefore,

determination of a fact by this Court in exercise of its original

jurisdiction may sparingly be resorted to because this Court may

not be in the best position to record evidence, there is no appeal

provided against a decision rendered in the said jurisdiction and

the Fundamental Right under Article 10A of the Constitution may

be jeopardized in such a process. He argued that in the context of

the facts of this case it was to be seen by this Court as to which

Fundamental Rights were involved or breached, who was

complaining of breach of Fundamental Rights, which facts needed

to be established first and what was the legal obligation of the

respondents non-performance of which was detrimental to the

petitioners? The learned Attorney-General went on to argue that in

order to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto this Court was

to be guided by the provisions of Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the

Constitution regarding a High Courts jurisdiction to issue a writ of

quo warranto which can be issued only against a holder of a

public office and, according to him, a Member of the National

Assembly, which respondent No. 1 is, is not a holder of a public

office in terms of the Constitution and the law. He, however, could

not refer in this respect to any specific provision of the Constitution

or the law or to any precedent of any court.

58. The learned Attorney-General also submitted that from the

language of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution it was not clear as to

which court was to give the requisite declaration and, at any rate,

no sufficient material was available before this Court in the

present proceedings to give a declaration of that nature. Suggesting

an alternate approach to the issues posed by the present petitions

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 66
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the learned Attorney-General submitted that under section 42-A of

the Representation of the People Act, 1976 every member of the

Parliament or a Provincial Assembly is required to submit yearly

statements of assets and liabilities before the Election Commission

of Pakistan and if such a statement is found to be false then it

amounts to a corrupt practice under section 78(3)(d) punishable

under section 82 of that Act and for such falsehood the concerned

person is to be tried by a Court of Session under section 94 of that

Act and if found guilty of such corrupt practice he stands

disqualified under section 99(1A)(1) of the Act. According to him

instead of entering into factual controversies while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution the matter

might be left to the Election Commission of Pakistan to attend to.

He maintained that in the light of the issues highlighted about a

declaration about honesty in the cases of Ishaq Khan

Khakwani and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others

(PLD 2015 SC 275) and Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad

Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066) such issues ought not to be decided by

this Court in the first instance or as a first and the only resort and

the civil or criminal issues involved in the matter ought to be

established through a trial before a court of plenary jurisdiction or

an election tribunal. According to him a declaration by a court or

tribunal of plenary jurisdiction ought to precede a finding by this

Court about honesty of a person. He submitted that inquisitorial

proceedings had been conducted by this Court in the past in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

where public rights were involved or where issues raised could be

resolved on the basis of admitted facts or official record as opposed

to private records and in this respect he referred to the cases of

Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan through

Ministry of Law and others (PLD 2013 SC 501), Imran Khan and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 67
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

others v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 SC

120), Lahore Bachao Tehrik v. Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan and

others (2015 SCMR 1520), Muhammad Asghar Khan v. Mirza

Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff (PLD 2013 SC 1), Workers

Party Pakistan through Akhtar Hussain Advocate, General Secretary

and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 2012 SC

681), Suo Motu action regarding allegation of business deal between

Malik Riaz Hussain and Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar attempting to influence

the judicial process (PLD 2012 SC 664) and Watan Party and

others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 292). He

also referred to the case of Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad

Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066) to urge that intricate questions of fact

requiring recording of evidence may not be resolved by this Court

in its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

59. Adverting to the matter of failure/refusal of the Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau to challenge the judgment of the

Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Reference No. 5 of 2000 was

quashed and reinvestigation of the matter was barred the learned

Attorney-General submitted that the said matter did not attract

filing of a statutory appeal before this Court and that the matter

could have been brought before this Court by anybody, including

the present petitioners, through filing of a civil petition for leave to

appeal. He stated that if such a petition for leave to appeal is filed

before this Court by any of the petitioners then the office of the

Attorney-General would not question the locus standi of the

petitioner in filing of such petition.

60. The learned Attorney-General went on to maintain that the

remedies under Article 63(2) and (3) of the Constitution were the

exclusive remedies for seeking post-election disqualification of a

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 68
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

member of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly and he placed

reliance in that regard upon the cases of Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad

Muhammad Khan, Member Provincial Assembly, N.W.F.P and

another (PLD 1995 SC 66) and Aftab Shaban Mirani v. President of

Pakistan and others (1998 SCMR 1863).

61. In respect of the alleged misstatement of facts by respondent

No. 1 in his speeches the learned Attorney-General submitted that

an omission in a statement does not necessarily constitute a

misstatement and in this regard he relied upon the cases of Peek v.

Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377, Hamilton and others v. Allied Domecq

Plc (Scotland) (2007) UKHL 33, 2007 SC (HL) 142 and Shiromani

Sugar Mills Ltd v. Debi Prasad (AIR 1950 All 508). According to him

a misstatement on the floor of the National Assembly is property of

that house to be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the

parliamentary practices and the rules regarding privilege of the

house.

62. In his brief submissions in rebuttal Syed Naeem Bokhari,

ASC for the petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016

submitted that respondent No. 7 was born on May 01, 1972,

respondent No. 6 was born on October 28, 1973 and respondent

No. 8 was born on January 21, 1976 and, thus, respondent No. 7

was about two years old, respondent No. 6 was less than one year

old and respondent No. 8 was not even born when the factory in

Dubai was stated to have been set up by their grandfather Mian

Muhammad Sharif in June 1974. He also highlighted that even at

the time of sale of 75% shares of that factory in the year 1978 and

at the time of sale of the remaining 25% shares of that factory in

the year 1980 all the said respondents were minors. He maintained

that the entire story stated before this Court by the children of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 69
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

respondent No. 1 was based firstly upon hearsay and secondly

upon two statements of a gentleman from Qatar who himself had

no personal knowledge of the matter and, therefore, that story was

simply to be discarded by this Court. He went on to submit that

respondent No. 1 did not mention any investment made by his

father in Qatar at all in his speeches or in his concise statements

submitted before this Court. Mr. Bokhari stated that it was

unbelievable that respondent No. 1s children knew about and

remembered the investment made in Qatar despite their minority

at the relevant time but respondent No. 1 did not! According to him

that was a deliberate suppression of facts by respondent No. 1

clearly establishing that he was not an honest person. He added

that with the collapse of the story about investment in Qatar the

story about trusteeship of the relevant properties in London also

crumbled to the ground exposing respondent No. 1 as the actual

owner of those properties which ownership he had knowingly and

purposely concealed and suppressed. In the end Mr. Bokhari

submitted that respondent No. 1 had not been truthful to the

nation, to the National Assembly and to this Court in the matter of

explaining his assets which were nothing but ill-gotten, he had not

been truthful in respect of the money fetched by the sale of the

factory in Dubai, he had not been truthful regarding beneficial

ownership of the properties in London and while suppressing his

Qatari connection he had been anything but honest.

63. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed petitioner in Constitution Petition

No. 30 of 2016 referred in his submissions in rebuttal to the case

of Abdul Waheed Chaudhry v. Abdul Jabbar and others (decided by

this Court on March 25, 2015) wherein the word honest appearing

in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution had been interpreted. On the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 70
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

issue of parliamentary privilege he referred to the cases of Syed

Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (PLD

1998 SC 823), Regina v. Chaytor (2011 UKSC 52), Canada (House

of Commons) v. Vaid, (2005) 1 S.C.R. 667, Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. v. Mr.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD 1975 SC 383), Miss Benazir Bhutto v.

Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 1988 SC 416), Ch. Nisar

Ali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 SC 568),

Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,

Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132)

and Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1054). He maintained that

this Court had the jurisdiction to grant any relief even beyond the

reliefs prayed for in a petition and in this respect he relied upon

the cases of Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, Member

Provincial Assembly, N.W.F.P and another (PLD 1995 SC 66),

Hitachi Limited and another v. Rupali Polyester and others (1998

SCMR 1618), Ch. Nisar Ali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2013 SC 568), Sindh High Court Bar Association

through its Secretary v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,

Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad (PLD 2009 SC 879) and

Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (PLD 1978

SC 220). With reference to the case of Muhammad Siddiq v. State

(1977 SCMR 503) he maintained that when stolen property is

recovered from the custody of a person then it is for that person to

explain such possession and the court is to presume his guilt as a

thief.

64. Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC for the petitioner in Constitution Petition

No. 3 of 2017 submitted in rebuttal that the word honest

appearing in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution had been

interpreted by this Court in the case of Syed Mehmood Akhtar

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 71
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others

(PLD 2012 SC 1089) and it was held that an honest person ought

not to be deceptive and he ought not to be given to cheating. In this

context he also referred to the cases of Watan Party and

others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 292) and

Allah Wasaya and 5 others v. Irshad Ahmad and 4 others (1992

SCMR 2184).

65. I have attended to each and every argument advanced, have

perused the entire documentary material produced and have also

gone through all the precedent cases cited before the Court besides

brooding over the diverse aspects of this case from all possible

angles.

66. The questions most hotly debated by the learned counsel for

the parties during the hearing of these petitions have been as to

what is the scope of the proceedings before this Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution and as to whether disputed or

intricate questions of fact can be decided in such proceedings with

or without recording of evidence or not. It was decided by this

Court on November 03, 2016 with reference to some precedent

cases that these petitions involved some serious questions of

public importance with reference to enforcement of some

Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the

Constitution and, therefore, the same were maintainable before

this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. On that

occasion none of the parties to these petitions raised any objection

to competence and maintainability of these petitions and even

during the hearing of these petitions no such objection has been

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 72
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

raised at any stage of the protracted hearings. In his two concise

statements submitted by respondent No. 1 maintainability of these

petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution had not been

contested and even the immunity available to a Prime Minister in

some matters under Article 248 of the Constitution was not

claimed.

67. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution has so far been invoked and utilized on diverse issues

of public importance with reference to enforcement of different

Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The issues of

qualifications or disqualifications of persons who are candidates for

election to or are members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a

Provincial Assembly have often cropped up before this Court in the

context of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution which prescribe

such qualifications and disqualifications and such issues have

reached this Court either through the appellate jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 185 of the Constitution or through its original

jurisdiction under Article 184 of the Constitution. Article 62(1)(f) of

the Constitution, as it stands today, deals with the qualifications

and provides as under:

62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen

as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-

---------------------

(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and

ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of
law; and ---------------------
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 73
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

It is true that on the issue of honesty of a candidate or a member a

prior declaration by a court of law regarding lack of honesty is a

prerequisite but in the cases initiated before an Election Tribunal a

practice has developed that the same Tribunal first decides the

issue of honesty on the basis of the evidence led before it and then

while issuing a declaration regarding honesty or the lack of it

simultaneously decides the matter of qualification or

disqualification. The plethora of case-law referred to by the learned

counsel for the parties in this regard may not be reproduced here

because that is the practice in vogue without any contest. The

same is also the practice in cases wherein the issue of qualification

or disqualification is raised before a High Court in its

constitutional jurisdiction through a writ of quo warranto and then

the matter reaches this Court through its appellate jurisdiction. In

all such cases some fact finding by a court or tribunal below is

involved and this Court then adjudicates upon the matter on the

basis of the evidence or material which is already on the record.

The issue involved in the present petitions is that the matter of

qualification or disqualification on the basis of honesty of

respondent No. 1 or the lack of it has been raised before this Court

directly and the learned counsel for the private respondents have

maintained that while exercising its original jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution this Court ought to be extremely

reluctant to receive evidence or material on the issue of honesty in

the first instance in the absence of a proper evidentiary hearing

and then simultaneously to issue a declaration on that issue and

proceed to disqualify a person, particularly when no remedy of

appeal is available against such adjudication and the

disqualification is permanent. They have maintained that the issue

of honesty or otherwise of respondent No. 1 involves disputed and

intricate questions of fact which cannot adequately or satisfactorily

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 74
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

be answered in the original jurisdiction of this Court. The stance of

the learned counsel for the private respondents in this regard can

be attended to after appreciating as to why these petitions had

been entertained by this Court in its original jurisdiction under

Article 184(3), is there any other court of law available at this stage

to issue the prayed for declaration in the context of Article 62(1)(f)

of the Constitution regarding lack of honesty of respondent No. 1

and are there disputed or intricate questions of fact really involved

in these petitions or not.

68. According to Article 90(1) of the Constitution by virtue of his

being the Prime Minister of the country respondent No. 1 is the

Chief Executive of the Federation and it is practically he who

appoints the heads of all the institutions in the country which

could have inquired into or investigated the allegations leveled

against respondent No. 1 and his family on the basis of the

Panama Papers. Even the Speaker of the National Assembly who

could refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan

belongs to his political party and is his nominee. These petitions

had been entertained by this Court in the backdrop of an

unfortunate refusal/failure on the part of all the relevant

institutions in the country like the National Accountability Bureau,

the Federal Investigation Agency, the State Bank of Pakistan, the

Federal Board of Revenue, the Securities and Exchange

Commission of Pakistan and the Speaker of the National Assembly

to inquire into or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the

Election Commission of Pakistan against respondent No. 1. A High

Court could have entertained a writ petition in the nature of quo

warranto so as to attend to the matter but it is agreed at all hands

that the matter is of immense public importance and involves

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 75
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

enforcement of some Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and that is why all the parties before this Court agree

that the present petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution are competent and maintainable and also that the

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is free from the

trappings of Article 199 of the Constitution. It is also not disputed

that the remedy of filing an Election Petition before an Election

Tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution is not available at

this juncture. The Speaker of the National Assembly could have

referred the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan under

Article 63(2) of the Constitution but he has already dismissed

various petitions filed before him in this regard by as many as

twenty-two members of the National Assembly including one of the

present petitioners. It is proverbial that there is no wrong without a

remedy. It was in the above mentioned unfortunate background

that this Court had entertained these petitions and now this Court

cannot turn around and shy away from deciding the matter simply

because it statedly involves some disputed or intricate questions of

fact which, as shall be discussed shortly, it does not. Apart from

that if this Court stops short of attending to the issue merely

because it involves some disputed or intricate questions of fact

then the message being sent would be that if a powerful and

experienced Prime Minister of the country/Chief Executive of the

Federation appoints his loyalists as heads of all the relevant

institutions in the country which can inquire into or investigate the

allegations of corruption, etc. against such Prime Minister/Chief

Executive of the Federation then a brazen blocking of such inquiry

or investigation by such loyalists would practically render the

Prime Minister/Chief Executive of the Federation immune from

touchability or accountability and that surely would be nothing

short of a disaster. It is said that how highsoever you may be the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 76
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

law is above you. It is in such spirit of democracy, accountability

and rule of law that this Court would not give a Prime

Minister/Chief Executive of the Federation a field day merely

because no other remedy is available or practicable to inquire into

the allegations of corruption, etc. leveled against him or where

such inquiry involves ascertainment of some facts. It is not for

nothing that Article 187(1) of the Constitution has empowered this

Court to do complete justice where all other avenues of seeking

justice are either unavailable or blocked. Apart from that I refuse to

accept the contention that the petitions in hand involve disputed

and intricate questions of fact which we cannot attend to or

adjudicate upon in the present proceedings under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution. The ownership and possession of the relevant

four properties in London are not denied by respondent No. 1s

family and the only question relevant to the issue before us is as to

whether respondent No. 1s denial of any connection with

acquisition of those properties is honest or not. It ought not to be

lost sight of that it is not the property in London which is in issue

before this Court but what is at issue is respondent No. 1s honesty

for the purposes of a disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution. Therefore, in order to attend to the said core issue I

have decided to keep aside the material produced by the petitioners

regarding the four properties in London and to take into

consideration primarily the explanations offered and the material

supplied by respondent No. 1 and his children in order to see

whether their explanations vis--vis acquisition of the said

properties are on the face of it honest or not. This approach

adopted by me leaves me with no disputed or intricate questions of

fact on the issue and focuses solely on the issue of honesty of

respondent No. 1 with reference to the explanations advanced by

him and his family only. Respondent No. 1 and his family cannot
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 77
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

claim that their explanations offered on the issue are themselves

disputed or intricate and this Court cannot even look at them!

69. Apart from what has been observed above in the case of Lt.-

Col. Farzand Ali and others v. Province of West Pakistan through the

Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Pakistan,

Lahore (PLD 1970 SC 98) this Court had clarified that where the

question is of a right to continue in public office the matter is of

public interest and in the absence of any other adequate remedy

this Court can interfere through proceedings not exactly as quo

warranto but in the nature of quo warranto with a wider scope. In

the present case respondent No. 1 is not just a serving member of

the National Assembly but also the Prime Minister of the country

and, thus, public interest in his right to continue in office is

immense. In the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and

others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774)

Prime Minster Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani was declared by this Court

itself to be disqualified through proceedings conducted under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution after his conviction had been

recorded for committing contempt of court. In the case of Syed

Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary

Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089) numerous members of the

Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) had been declared by this Court to be

disqualified on the basis of their being holders of dual nationality

and were shown the door through direct exercise of this Courts

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and on that

occasion some factual inquiry had also been conducted by this

Court. It had clearly been held in that case that this Court had the

jurisdiction to satisfy itself on a question of fact touching a

disqualification notwithstanding any admission made by a party or

not. It is settled by now that the jurisdiction of this Court under

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 78
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Article 184(3) of the Constitution is inquisitorial in nature rather

than adversarial and while exercising such jurisdiction this Court

can ascertain, collect and determine facts where needed or found

necessary. In the case of Pakistan Muslim League (N) through

Khawaja Muhammad Asif, M.N.A. and others v. Federation of

Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others (PLD 2007

SC 642) it was observed by this Court that there was a judicial

consensus on the scope of proceedings under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution and that even disputed questions of fact could be

looked into where a Fundamental Right had been breached

provided there was no voluminous evidence to be assessed and no

intricate disputed questions of fact were involved. In the case of Air

Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza

Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1)

some evidence was in fact recorded by this Court while hearing a

petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Even in the

case of General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union

(CBA) Khewra, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral

Development, Punjab, Lahore (1994 SCMR 2061) this Court had

clearly held that an exercise of finding facts can be resorted to in

proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It is also a

fact that while proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

this Court had in many a case constituted Commissions tasked to

inquire into some facts by recording evidence and to determine

questions of fact on behalf of the Court and a reference in this

respect may be made to the cases of Ms. Shehla Zia and others v.

WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), Watan Party and others v. Federation of

Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 292) and Suo Motu case No. 16

of 2016 (Quetta lawyers carnage case).

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 79
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

70. It was also argued before us that on September 02, 2016 a

petition filed by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed petitioner before the

Speaker of the National Assembly for referring the matter of

disqualification of respondent No. 1 to the Election Commission of

Pakistan under Article 63(2) of the Constitution was dismissed

whereafter the said petitioner had challenged that order of the

Speaker before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ

Petition No. 31193 of 2016 which is still pending before that Court

and, therefore, the present petitions filed on the same subject

before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution are not

maintainable or they may not be adjudicated upon for the time

being. This argument, however, overlooks the law declared by this

Court in the cases of Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan

and another (PLD 1988 SC 416), Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473), Suo

Motu Case No. 10 of 2009 (2010 SCMR 885), Shahid Orakzai v.

Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad (PLD

2011 SC 365), Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012

SC 132), Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2014 SC 206) and Jamshoro Joint Venture Ltd. and

others v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif and others (2014 SCMR 1858)

wherein it had clearly been laid down that the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is an independent

and original jurisdiction which is not affected by pendency of any

matter on the same subject before any other court or forum or even

by a prior decision of the same issue by any other court or forum

below.

71. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the private

respondents that in exercise of this Courts jurisdiction under

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 80
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Article 184(3) of the Constitution ordinarily no evidence is

recorded, no right of cross-examination of witnesses is available

and no right of appeal exists against the decision rendered and,

therefore, it can be argued that rendering a finding of fact in

exercise of such jurisdiction may militate against the Fundamental

Right guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution regarding fair

trial and due process. Article 10A of the Constitution provides as

follows:

10A. For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a
fair trial and due process.

There is hardly any determination of civil rights of the private

respondents involved in the present proceedings and no trial of

the said respondents on any criminal charge is being conducted

in these proceedings and, therefore, the said contention has failed

to impress us. The case in hand is akin to the cases of Mohtarma

Benazir Bhutto and another v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD

1998 SC 388) clarified in Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of

Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 77) and Air Marshal (Retd.)

Muhammad Asghar Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig,

Former Chief of Army Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1) wherein the

constitutional aspects of the cases were decided by this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution whereas the criminal

aspects of the matters were left to be attended to by the

appropriate investigation agencies or criminal courts.

72. The learned Attorney-Generals objection that a member of

the National Assembly does not hold a public office and,

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 81
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

therefore, a Constitution Petition in the nature of quo warranto is

not maintainable against him either before a High Court under

Article 199(1)(b)(ii) or before this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution has also failed to find favour with me as it has already

been held by this Court in the case of Salahuddin and 2 others v.

Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd., Tokht Bhai and 10 others

(PLD 1975 SC 244) that the words public office are much wider

than the words service of Pakistan and they include those who

perform legislative function. A similar view was also taken by this

Court in the case of Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of

Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089).

Apart from that a holder of a public office can be proceeded

against for an offence of corruption and corrupt practices under

section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and

scores of members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of the

Provincial Assemblies, including some Federal and Provincial

Ministers, have already been successfully tried for that offence by

the National Accountability Bureau and in none of such cases it

was ever argued before or held by any court that a member of the

Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly does not

hold a public office.

73. The precedent cases cited before us by the learned counsel

for the parties bear an ample testimony to the fact that the scope

and practice regarding exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution is still evolving and that no

specific procedure for exercise of that jurisdiction has so far been

laid down by this Court. The cases dealt with by this Court under

that jurisdiction thus far have varied vastly in their subject and

content and, therefore, this Court has consciously avoided to shut

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 82
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the door to any procedural modality which may be best suited to

an effective and proper determination of an issue competently

brought to this Court under that jurisdiction. It is for that reason

that no hard and fast rule has so far been laid down by this Court

regarding the mode, mechanism or modality through which the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

may be exercised and it has been left to the Court to decide as to

which lawful procedure would suit the requirements of a given case

best. It is the nature of the issue and the circumstances of the

case which are to determine the procedure to be adopted. It may be

pertinent to mention here that even interpretation of the words like

honest and ameen used in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is

still not definite and precise and how to apply those words and

provisions to the facts of a given case is also a question which has

no certain answer as yet and that uncertainty gives this Court a lot

of flexibility in the matter of interpretation and application besides

keeping all possibilities of procedure to be adopted wide open. As

far as the present petitions are concerned I have already mentioned

above the circumstances in which this Court had entertained the

same. It is not the normal function of this Court to enter into

questions of fact in the first instance but where a question of

immense public importance with reference to enforcement of

Fundamental Rights is involved and all the statutory and

constitutional institutions or authorities that could deal with the

matter have failed/refused to perform their statutory or

constitutional duties in that regard there even questions of fact

may be looked into by this Court in the interest of doing complete

justice. As already observed above, while attending to the

questions of fact involved in the present petitions I have decided

not to enter into disputed or intricate questions of fact and to

confine my attention primarily to the facts asserted, explanations

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 83
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

offered or the material placed on the record by respondent No. 1

and his family. It would surely be unreasonable on the part of

respondent No. 1 and his family to maintain or contend that the

facts asserted by them, the explanations offered by them or the

material placed on the record by them are themselves disputed or

intricate and, therefore, this Court ought not to attend to them!

74. At every step of the hearing of these petitions we had

afforded ample opportunities to all the parties to bring any

material on the record in support of their case. The petitioners

have relied upon two speeches made by respondent No. 1

addressing the nation on radio and television and a speech made

by him on the floor of the National Assembly explaining how funds

had become available for acquiring the four properties in London

and according to the petitioners the explanations advanced were

evasive, contradictory, unproved and untrue. The petitioners have

also placed on the record extracts of different interviews given by

the wife and children of respondent No. 1 and some others close to

the respondents wherein totally divergent stands had been taken

regarding possession and ownership of the said properties. The

petitioners have further relied upon some documents in order to

establish that all the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1

and his children in respect of generation and availability of funds

for acquisition of the relevant properties were factually incorrect

and that the respondents stand that respondent No. 1s son

namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif became the beneficial owner of

the relevant properties in London in the year 2006 was factually

incorrect because respondent No. 1s daughter namely Mariam

Safdar was the actual beneficial owner of those properties since

before the year 2006. It has also been maintained by the

petitioners that the trust deed showing Mariam Safdar as a trustee

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 84
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of the said properties on behalf of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif since

the year 2006 was an unregistered document which was nothing

but sham. As against that respondent No. 1 and his children have

placed on the record some documents showing sale of a business

concern in Dubai, some tax returns and some documents

establishing as to how Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, a son of

respondent No. 1, had become the beneficial owner of the relevant

properties in the year 2006. The children of respondent No. 1 have

also brought on the record two statements made by one Mr. Hamad

bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani of Qatar and some other supporting

statements and documents claiming that Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif had become the owner of the above mentioned two offshore

companies and the relevant properties in London in the year 2006

as a result of a settlement of accounts between Al-Thani family of

Qatar and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif in respect of an investment

made by the said respondents grandfather namely Mian

Muhammad Sharif in the real estate business of Al-Thani family in

Qatar. All the above mentioned documents and material as well as

the contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties have been attended to and scrutinized by me with the

necessary care that they deserved.

75. It may be advantageous to start the discussion about the

relevant properties in London with the initial explanations

volunteered by respondent No. 1. The Panama Papers came to

surface through the print and electronic media on April 04, 2016.

On April 05, 2016 respondent No. 1 addressed the nation on radio

and television and he stated as follows:

2016 5

!










25


Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 85
& Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

16 1971


1972 2 15



1936





6 18

1979












1989

( )
1989 50
50



50



1999


14















7



1994
2000




















6

The gist of the explanations offered by respondent No. 1 in that

speech is reproduced below:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 86
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

* My father had started his business by establishing Ittefaq

Foundries in Lahore in the year 1936 prior to the creation of

Pakistan.

* In the year 1972 Ittefaq Foundries was nationalized

obliterating and wiping out the hard work, investment and

savings of our elders.

* In the next 18 months my father established 6 new

factories.

* In July 1979 Ittefaq Foundries was returned to us in the

shape of ruins but my father again turned it into a

functional and vibrant industrial unit.

* In the second tenure of the Pakistan Peoples Partys rule

an economic blockade led to Ittefaq Foundries becoming

dysfunctional.

* In the year 1999 my government was toppled, we were

imprisoned for 14 months and our business was completely

destroyed. We were then thrown out of the country.

* During our forced exile my father established a steel factory

near Makkah in Saudi Arabia for which loan was obtained

from Saudi banks.

* The steel factory near Makkah was sold after a few years

along with all its assets. Those resources were utilized by my

sons Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz for setting up their

business.

* I hope that the entire background of our business is now

clear to my fellow countrymen as I have informed you about

all the important stages of our journey.

* As we have not committed any illegality at any stage,

therefore, I have decided to address you so that the true

facts are fully brought to the knowledge of my dear

countrymen.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 87
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

It has pertinently been observed by me that in the above

mentioned speech made by respondent No. 1 it had not been

disclosed as to how and through which resources the respondents

father had established 6 new factories within 18 months of

nationalization of Ittefaq Foundries, especially when statedly the

entire savings of the respondents elders stood obliterated and

wiped out. It is also strikingly noticeable that in that speech there

was no mention whatsoever of setting up of any factory in Dubai

which was sold in 1980. That speech also failed to disclose any

detail of the funds available or procured for setting up of the

factory near Makkah. It was maintained in that speech that the

funds generated through sale of the factory near Makkah were

utilized by respondent No. 1s sons namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz

Sharif and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif for setting up their business.

It had been maintained by respondent No. 1 that through that

speech he had made the entire background of his familys business

clear to his countrymen and that he had informed them about all

the important stages of the familys journey in business. He had

proclaimed that what he had disclosed were the true facts. I

have, however, found that that was not the case and unfortunately

respondent No. 1 had economized with the truth on that occasion.

There was absolutely no explanation offered in that speech as to

how the relevant four properties in London had been acquired and

respondent No. 1 had never stated on that occasion that he had no

concern with the ownership of those properties or that no money

belonging to him had been utilized for their acquisition.

76. On April 22, 2016 respondent No. 1 addressed the nation

again on the subject on radio and television but that speech did

not contain any specific information about the resources or assets

 Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 88
& Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of the respondent and his family. Again, no explanation whatsoever

was offered in that speech as to how the properties in London had

been acquired.

77. On May 16, 2016 respondent No. 1 read out a written speech

in the National Assembly which was broadcast and telecast live on

radio and television and this is what he said on that occasion:

16 2016
!
!








!

































22








3
15






!






























!












 Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 89
& Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

20







!











!






11 80



-


1970
1972





1 80 1971 4

44
700
50 500 4


155

! 8




6






1983 60
6
7 57
1995 !















80 1970

!

7 23
10
23 8

!
" "


8
23
60 3 15


" "




!




! 1972





10


33.37 ! 1980 ! 4 5
9

!




1999
















!


Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 90
& Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2005
64 17 !






!

























!




! 70







3


2018

The salient points of that speech are reproduced below:

* I want the allegations against my family to be inquired into.

We are ready for accountability and we do not need any

constitutional or legal immunity.

* I have nothing to hide and everything is like an open book.

* Upon nationalization of Ittefaq Foundries not a single Paisa

was paid to us as compensation for the machinery, land or

other assets.

* After 8 years Ittefaq Foundries was returned to us and it

was in ruins. My father turned it around in just one year

and made it into an active and vibrant industrial unit.

* By the year 1983 Ittefaq Foundries was yielding profit of

Rupees 7 crores and 57 lacs per annum and by the year

1995 it had expanded to many other companies.

* Before my entry into politics our family was quite

prosperous and I inherited a successful and growing

business.

* In the last about 23 years my familys businesses have paid

about 10 billion Rupees in taxes and government dues.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 91
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

* In the last 23 years, excluding 8 years of forced exile, I have

personally paid Rupees 3 crores and 60 lacs as tax.

* After nationalization of Ittefaq Foundries in the year 1972,

for which no compensation was paid, my father proceeded to

Dubai for doing business and established a factory by the

name of Gulf Steel. That factory was sold in April 1980 for

about 33.37 million Dirhams (about 9 million US Dollars).

* In the year 1999 our business was again crippled, our

houses were taken over and we were exiled from the country.

At that time the entire record was taken away from our

homes, offices and business concerns which was not

returned to us despite repeated efforts.

* Despite an exhaustive scrutiny of that record and our bank

accounts no illegality or corruption had been found by the

concerned quarters.

* While in exile my father set up a steel factory in Jeddah,

Saudi Arabia and for such investment the proceeds of sale of

the factory in Dubai also helped.

* The steel factory in Jeddah was sold along with its

machinery, land and other assets in June 2005 for about 64

million Riyals (about 17 million US Dollars).

* The entire record and documents pertaining to the Dubai

and Jeddah factories are available.

* These are the means and resources with which the flats in

London had been purchased.

* No money was sent out of Pakistan for any payment for the

factory in Jeddah or the flats in London.

* The entire evidence and other details in support of the facts

stated by me shall be produced before any committee or

forum.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 92
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

A careful reading of that speech made by respondent No. 1 shows

that it was for the first time that any mention had been made

therein by the respondent to setting up and sale of a factory in

Dubai as no mention of the same had been made by the

respondent in his first or second address to the nation on the

issue. It had been stated in the latest speech that in the year 1999

the entire record of the familys business had been taken away by

the authorities and the same had not been returned despite

repeated requests but later on in the same speech respondent No.

1 had categorically stated that the entire record and documents

pertaining to the Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and

that such record could be produced before any committee or

forum! The first address to the nation mentioned setting up of a

steel factory near Makkah but the speech made in the National

Assembly referred to a steel factory in Jeddah. In the first address

to the nation respondent No. 1 had claimed that the proceeds of

sale of the steel factory near Makkah had been utilized by his two

sons for setting up their business but in the speech made in the

National Assembly he had changed his earlier stance and had

maintained that the generated resources had been utilized for

purchase of the flats in London. Even in that speech respondent

No. 1 had never stated that he had no concern with the ownership

of those properties or that no money belonging to him had been

utilized for their acquisition. The story about purchase of the

relevant properties in London had taken yet another turn at a

subsequent stage.

78. Although it had specifically and repeatedly been said by

respondent No. 1 on the floor of the National Assembly in the

above mentioned speech that the entire record relevant to the

setting up and sale of the factories in Dubai and Jeddah was

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 93
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

available and would be produced whenever required yet when this

Court required Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC, the then learned

counsel for respondent No. 1, on December 07, 2016 to produce or

show the said record he simply stated that no such record existed

or was available and that the statement made by respondent No. 1

in the National Assembly in that respect was merely a political

statement! It may be pertinent to mention here that in the evening

preceding the said stand taken by the learned counsel for

respondent No. 1 before this Court an interview was telecast on

Geo News television wherein Mr. Haroon Pasha, the chief financial

advisor of respondent No. 1 and his family, had stated before the

host namely Mr. Shahzeb Khanzada that the entire record about

Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and that the said record

had been handed over to respondent No. 1s lawyers and now it

was for those lawyers to present it before the Court. The transcript

of that interview is available on the record of this Court and none

from either side of this case has disputed the authenticity of that

transcript. In one of his interviews with Mr. Javed Chaudhry on

Express News television on March 07, 2016 Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif, respondent No. 7, had also categorically maintained that

the entire record pertaining to acquisition of the four properties in

London was available with the family and the same would be

produced before any court looking into the matter. Such state of

affairs has been found by me to be nothing but shocking as it

tends to be an attempt to suppress the relevant facts and the truth

and to mislead the Court. Mr. Haroon Pasha and Mr. Hussain

Nawaz Sharif have never denied or contradicted the contents of the

above mentioned interviews.

79. Respondent No. 1 and his children have maintained before

this Court that a factory in Dubai was set up by respondent No. 1s

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 94
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

father namely Mian Muhammad Sharif through his Benamidar and

nephew namely Mr. Tariq Shafi in the year 1974 and then it was

sold by him in parts in the years 1978 and 1980 through the said

Mr. Tariq Shafi fetching about 33.37 million Dirhams (about 9

million US Dollars) and it is claimed by respondent No. 1 and his

children that the relevant properties in London had been acquired

in the year 2006. No record has been produced before us to show

how much money was available for setting up the factory in Dubai,

how that money was transferred to or arranged in Dubai, what

happened to the 33.37 million Dirhams received by respondent No.

1s father upon sale of the factory in Dubai, how funds were

generated for setting up the factory in Jeddah, what happened to

the 64 million Riyals (about 17 million US Dollars) received upon

sale of the factory in Jeddah in June 2005, how funds were

transferred to London for purchase of the relevant properties in

London and through which legal instrument the said properties or

the offshore companies owning them were acquired. It is ironical

that on the one hand respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 7

had claimed that the entire relevant record was available and the

same would be produced when required but on the other hand

except for a copy of a Share Sale Contract in the year 1978, a copy

of the Tripartite Sale Agreement pertaining to the factory in Dubai

in the year 1980 and an affidavit of Mr. Tariq Shafi dated November

12, 2016 no record whatsoever had initially been produced

establishing any connection between the proceeds of such sale in

the years 1978 and 1980 and acquisition of the relevant properties

in London in the year 2006. Apart from that the money fetched by

sale of the factory in Dubai belonged to respondent No. 1s father

who had a reasonably large family consisting of his own children

and nephews who were all statedly involved in almost all the

businesses of the family. How much share of the money received in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 95
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the years 1978 and 1980 fell to the share of respondent No. 1 and

then to the share of his children and was that share enough to

purchase the relevant properties in London in the year 2006, i.e.

after 26 years are also questions which have remained abeging an

answer in this case. Some material was subsequently brought on

the record of this case by the children of respondent No. 1 but the

same shall be attended to a little later in this judgment. Another

remarkable feature of this case is that the whole case is about

legitimate acquisition of some properties but no detail of any bank

account, any banking transaction or any money trail has been

brought on the record of the case by respondent No. 1 or his

children. We have been informed that Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif

started doing his own business after the year 2000 when

respondent No. 1 had gone in exile to Saudi Arabia. Nothing has

been brought on the record of this case by Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif to show as to when he had started his own business and as

to how sufficient funds generated through his own business were

available with him in the year 2006 so as to purchase the

relevant four properties in London. It may be pertinent to mention

here that respondent No. 1 had categorically maintained before the

National Assembly that the said properties in London had been

purchased through proceeds of sales of the factories in Dubai

and Jeddah (and not through any private resources of Mr. Hussain

Nawaz Sharif or through any settlement of an investment of his

grandfather in Qatar). Respondent No. 1s father namely Mian

Muhammad Sharif had died in the year 2004 and the relevant

properties in London had statedly been acquired in the name of

Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif in the year 2006. Upon the death of

Mian Muhammad Sharif in the year 2004 all his assets had

automatically devolved upon all his legal heirs including

respondent No. 1 and if the properties in London had been

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 96
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

acquired through the funds generated through sale of the factories

in Dubai and Jeddah then the said funds belonged to respondent

No. 1 and the other heirs of late Mian Muhammad Sharif. It is,

thus, evident from the stands of respondent No. 1 and his children

themselves that funds belonging at that time to respondent No. 1

had been utilized for acquisition of the said properties in London in

the year 2006 establishing an undeniable connection between

respondent No. 1 and the relevant properties, a connection which

has not been explained by the said respondent at all. The record

produced before the Court shows that inheritance of Mian

Muhammad Sharif was settled amongst his heirs through an

agreement dated January 01, 2009. Respondent No. 7 namely Mr.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif was not an heir of his grandfather namely

Mian Muhammad Sharif.

80. The only concrete material produced by respondent No. 1

before this Court in respect of generation of funds outside Pakistan

is in the shape of copies of the above mentioned Share Sale

Contract and Tripartite Sale Agreement through which the factory

in Dubai was sold in the years 1978 and 1980 and the supporting

affidavit of Mr. Tariq Shafi sworn on November 12, 2016. The

learned counsel for the petitioners have dug holes in the said

documents and have pointed out that through the sale of 75%

shares of that factory in the year 1978 not a single Dirham had

become available to respondent No. 1s father as the entire

proceeds of the sale had to be adjusted towards some admitted

outstanding liabilities. With reference to clauses (4)(B), (4)(C), (4)(D)

and (5) of the Share Sale Contract mentioned above it has been

pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the

time of sale of 75% shares of the factory in Dubai in the year 1978

Mr. Tariq Shafis liability as the ostensible owner was more than 36
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 97
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

million Dirhams and at that time an amount of 6 million Dirhams

was still due to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International

(BCCI). They have also pointed out from the above mentioned

document that at that time Mr. Tariq Shafi was still to discharge

some liabilities towards Dubai Electricity Company to the tune of

about 3 million Dirhams. On April 14, 1980 Mr. Tariq Shafi had

sold his remaining 25% shares in the said factory in Dubai for 12

million Dirhams. It has, thus, been demonstrated before us that

the assertion of respondent No. 1 that 33.37 million Dirhams had

been received by respondent No. 1s father upon sale of the factory

in Dubai in the year 1980 which money was later on utilized for

purchase of the properties in London in the year 2006 was an

assertion which was untrue. Referring to the affidavit sworn by Mr.

Tariq Shafi on November 12, 2016 the learned counsel for the

petitioners have submitted that Mr. Tariq Shafi had admitted that

he was only about 19 years of age at the relevant time, he was an

ostensible owner of the factory in Dubai and as a matter of fact he

was only a Benamidar for respondent No. 1s father namely Mian

Muhammad Sharif. Mr. Tariq Shafi had also stated in that affidavit

that upon the sale of the factory in Dubai he had received 12

million Dirhams which amount had been received by him on behalf

of respondent No. 1s father. It has, thus, been maintained by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents brought on

the record of this petition by respondent No. 1 himself clearly

established that the assertion of respondent No. 1 in the National

Assembly that an amount of 33.37 million Dirhams had been

received by his father upon sale of the factory in Dubai was

factually incorrect and, therefore, even the assertions that the

factory in Jeddah had been set up through that amount and then

the properties in London had been purchased through those

resources were also untrue.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 98
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

81. I have further noticed that while concluding the above

mentioned Tripartite Sale Agreement respondent No. 1s father had

acted through his attorney and nephew namely Mr. Tariq Shafi. A

bare look at the affidavit statedly sworn by Mr. Tariq Shafi on

November 12, 2016 and referred to above makes it apparent to a

naked eye that the signatures of Mr. Tariq Shafi on the said

affidavit are clearly different from the signatures on the Tripartite

Sale Agreement attributed to him. I may, therefore, be justified in

observing that either the copy of the Tripartite Sale Agreement

produced before the Court is bogus or the affidavit attributed to

Mr. Tariq Shafi is not genuine.

82. On account of the facts mentioned above I have entertained

serious doubts about the claim of respondent No. 1 and his family

that the relevant properties in London had legitimately and

lawfully been acquired by them through the resources and funds

stated by them and such doubts have been compounded by some

interviews given by them to the local and international print and

electronic media. The authenticity of the reports regarding such

interviews has never been denied by the persons giving the

interviews nor the learned counsel for the respondents have

contested the same when specifically asked by the Court.

Respondent No. 8 namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif, a son of

respondent No. 1, had admitted in an interview with Tim Sebastian

on BBCs programme Hard Talk in November 1999, about seven

years prior to the stated acquisition of the properties in London,

that he was a student with no earnings of his own, he did not own

those properties but he was living in the same on rent and the

money for his living in those properties came from Pakistan on a

quarterly basis. The newspaper Guardian, London had quoted Mrs.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 99
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif, the lady wife of respondent No. 1, on April

10, 2000 as saying that the properties in London had been

bought by the family because the children were studying in

England. Respondent No. 6 namely Mariam Safdar, a daughter of

respondent No. 1, had stated in her interview with Ms. Sana Bucha

on Geo News television on November 08, 2011 that she lived with

her father, she had no house in Pakistan, she had no property in

Central London and she had no connection with any property in

Pakistan or abroad. If a trust deed statedly executed between her

and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif in respect of the properties in

London had existed since the year 2006 then she would have

mentioned that in that interview given in the year 2011.

Respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, a son of

respondent No. 1, had stated in his interview with Mr. Hamid Mir

in Capital Talk on Geo News television on January 19, 2016 that

sale of the factory in Jeddah had fetched good money which had

been officially transferred to England about eleven or twelve years

ago and through that money he had acquired three properties

there through mortgages for which payments were still being

made. He had gone on to state in that interview that the said

properties had been purchased by him and they were still in

possession of the family. Unfortunately no record of the stated

official transfer of money from Saudi Arabia to the United

Kingdom had been produced before this Court. That stance of

respondent No. 7 regarding purchase of those properties through

mortgages had subsequently been changed. No mention had been

made in that interview to any investment made by Mian

Muhammad Sharif in real estate business in Qatar and to the

properties in London having been acquired as a result of any

settlement of that investment. Respondent No. 7 namely Mr.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif had also stated in his interview with Mr.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 100
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Javed Chaudhry on Express News television on March 07, 2016

that he owned the offshore companies which owned the properties

in London, the said properties were ours (the family) and

respondent No. 8, his brother, was doing business in London for

the last 21 years, i.e. since the year 1995. It has already been

noticed above that respondent No. 8 had stated in the year 1999

that he was a student and he had no earnings of his own till then.

In the said interview too respondent No. 7 had made no mention of

any investment made by his grandfather in Qatar the settlement of

which investment had statedly provided the funds for acquisition of

the properties in London in the year 2006. Even the story about

investment in real estate business in Qatar and the subsequent

settlement of that business was also, thus, nothing but an

afterthought. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in his

three speeches mentioned above and also in his concise statements

submitted before this Court respondent No. 1 had never said a

word about any investment by his father in any real estate

business in Qatar and funds generated through a settlement of

that investment being utilized for acquisition of the properties in

London whereas through their concise statements submitted

before this Court by his children that was the only source of funds

through which the said properties had been acquired in the name

of respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif. At least one

thing is quite clearly established from the above mentioned

undisputed and uncontroverted interviews that respondent No. 1

and his family are in possession of the properties in London since

early 1990s. Except for two statements of a gentleman belonging to

Al-Thani family of Qatar, which statements shall be discussed

shortly, absolutely nothing has been brought on the record of these

petitions by respondent No. 1 and his children explaining as to

when and how they had come in possession of the said properties
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 101
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

in London. The interviews detailed above also paint a very

confusing picture of when and how the said properties had been

purchased by respondent No. 1 or one of his sons and all the

stories advanced are not only contradictory to each other but also

incompatible with the stands taken by respondent No. 1 before the

nation, the National Assembly and this Court.

83. A chart reproduced below highlights the serious

contradictions in the stands taken by respondent No. 1 and his

immediate family from time to time in the matter of acquisition of

the relevant four properties in London which contradictions may

reflect upon their lack of honesty on the issue:

Respondents Medium Stance Problems

Respondent No. Address to During the days * Did not mention setting
1: the nation: of forced exile our up and sale of the
Mian April 05, father once again factory in Dubai at all.
Muhammad 2016 established a
steel factory near * Did not explicitly
Nawaz Sharif
the city of mention any particular
Makkah. resource for acquisition
of the properties in
This factory was London.
established, for
which loans were * Did not mention that
obtained from the sale proceeds of the
Saudi Banks, and factory in Jeddah were
then after a few used to acquire the
years the factory properties in London but
was sold with all maintained that the
its assets. proceeds were used by
his two sons for their
These resources new business.
were used by my
sons Hassan * Did not even hint at
Nawaz and any investment made in
Hussain Nawaz Qatar and the
for their new subsequent settlement
business. upon which the whole
edifice was built by his
children.

* Proceeds of sale of the

factory in Jeddah
mentioned as the source
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 102
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of funds for his two sons

business but the said
sons maintained that
investment with Al-Thani
family of Qatar was the
source of funds for
Hassan Nawaz Sharifs
business.

Speech in Our father also * Setting up and sale of a

the National reached Dubai for factory in Dubai
Assembly: the purpose of mentioned for the first
May16, business and time.
2016 established a
factory with the * No reference made to
name of Gulf any investment in Qatar.
Steel comprising
of 10 lac square * Clearly stated that no
feet of area. Mr. money for the factory in
Speaker! This Jeddah or the flats in
factory, in 1980, London went from
was sold for Pakistan. However, it
33.37 million was not clearly stated
Dirhams or for 9 that no money went from
million Dollars. Pakistan for the factory
Mr. Speaker! Our in Dubai.
father was alive
then. He once * The stance about
again, in exile, purchase of the flats in
established a London was not
steel factory in supported by his
Jeddah. Among children and he
the primary produced nothing before
source of funds the nation, the National
which helped in Assembly or this Court
establishing to explain or justify the
Jeddah factory claimed purchase.
was the funds
received from the * In his address to the
sale of Gulf nation he stated that
factory. In June sale of the factory in
2005, Jeddah Jeddah was the source
factory was sold of funds for his sons
for approximately business but in this
64 million Riyals address he stated that
or 17 million proceeds of sale of the
Dollars along factory in Jeddah were
with its used to purchase the
machinery, land flats in London.
and other assets.
Mr. Speaker! All
the record and
documents
regarding sale of
Gulf factory and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 103
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Jeddah factory
are available.
These are the
means and
resources which
were used to
purchase the
flats in London.
Mr. Speaker! Let
me say this in
clear and
unambiguous
terms that
whether it was
Jeddah factory,
London flats or
any other
payment, not a
single Rupee
from Pakistan
had been
transferred for
them. The
insecurity
because of which
our father
invested in Dubai
was proved to be
well founded in
1999 when our
family business
was once again
crippled.

All concise Denied ownership * Never denied

statements of any of the four possession of the four
filed by properties in properties in London.
Mian London.
Muhammad * Never said that the said
Nawaz four properties belong to
Sharif his children.
before this
Court * Did not mention sale of
the factory in Jeddah
being the sources of
funds for acquisition of
the flats in London as
mentioned in his speech
in the National
Assembly.

* No mention of the
factory in Dubai, the
factory in Jeddah or any
investment in Qatar.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 104
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Mrs. Park Lane flats * Children were studying

Kulsoom were bought in London in the 1990s.
Nawaz because the
children were * Supported her
Sharif
studying in husbands stance that
quoted by
London. the flats in London had
Guardian,
been purchased.
London:
April 10,
* Contradicted the
2000.
stance of her children
that the flats were
acquired in 2006.

Respondent No. Interview: I do not have any * In 2011 she denied

6: Lekin, Geo property in that she or her siblings
Mariam Safdar News: Central London, owned any property in
November in fact far from it, London whereas her
08, 2011 I do not own any stance before this Court
property even in is that her brother
Pakistan. I live Hussain Nawaz Sharif
with my father. I owns the relevant four
fail to understand properties in Central
from where they London since 2006 and
have dug out she is a trustee of those
properties properties for the said
belonging to me, brother since 2006.
my mother, my
sister or my
brothers.

Joint Respondent No. * Did not mention that

concise 6 is only a she was a trustee for
statement trustee for respondent No. 7 in
filed by Respondent No. 7 relation to Nielsen
respondents in relation to Enterprise Limited also.
No. 6, 7 and Nescoll.
8:
November
07, 2016

Additional She came to * That meant that she

statement know of the knew about acquisition
filed by settlement in of the flats in London by
respondent Qatar regarding one of her brothers since
No. 6: the flats in 2005 but in her
January 24, London in 2005 interview in 2011 she
2017 when she was categorically denied
asked to become knowledge of any
a trustee for her property of his brothers
brother. or sister in London.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 105
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

* She maintained that

she had been asked to
become a trustee for her
brothers in respect of the
flats in London in 2005
whereas the flats had
statedly been transferred
in favour of her brother
in 2006. This established
that the flats were
already owned by the
brother since before the
so-called settlement of
business in Qatar.

Respondent No. Interview: Stance 1: * No document produced

7: Capital The sale of the to show that any amount
Mr. Hussain Talk, factory in Saudi was officially transferred
Nawaz Sharif Geo News: Arabia fetched from Saudi Arabia to the
January 19, us a very good United Kingdom after
2016 amount and that sale of the factory in
money was then Jeddah.
officially
transferred to * No proof of any
Britain. mortgage created for
acquisition of the
Stance 2: properties in London has
From that been produced.
officially
transferred * The story about
money to Britain mortgage was a totally
I had obtained new story and completely
three properties contradictory to the
in London other stories based upon
through purchase or settlement
mortgage. in Qatar.
Those properties
are still * A document produced
mortgaged and by respondent No. 1
the mortgage before the Court showed
amount is still that after the death of
being paid for Mian Muhammad Sharif
them gradually. in 2004 his inheritance
We, again said had been settled in 2009
I, had with distribution of
purchased assets.
those properties
in 2006. * Under Shariah
respondent No. 7 was
Stance 3: not an heir of his
All the assets grandfather Mian
were distributed Muhammad Sharif and,
in 2005 thus, he did not inherit
anything from him in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 106
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

whereafter my 2004. After the death of

father ceased to the grandfather in 2004
have any legal all his assets, including
connection with any investment in Qatar,
his sons automatically devolved
businesses but upon his heirs including
according to respondent No. 1. So,
Shariah respondent No. 1 was
everything one of the owners of the
belonging to me assets which were
is his and even I statedly transferred in
am owned by favour of respondent No.
him. 7 in 2006 and that is
why respondent No. 7
might have said that
everything belonging to
me is his.

Interview: In 2005 I sold a * The subsequent stand

Hum factory in Saudi that the properties in
Dekhaingay Arabia and London had been
92 News: proceeds of that acquired through a
April 04, factory were used settlement of an
2016. to purchase investment in Qatar
these properties. stood completely
----- This is the destroyed.
source and there
is nothing * The subsequent
except this. statement of the
gentleman from Qatar to
The factory that the effect that bearer
was installed in shares of the relevant
Saudi Arabia was companies were
sold in 2005 by delivered to respondent
No. 7 in exchange of
us and a part of
settling approximately 8
those proceeds
million US Dollars from
was used to
an investment in Qatar
purchase the
was completely belied.
properties in
London. The
companies that
were holding
those properties
were purchased.

Joint Source of funds, * The first statement of

concise resulting in the gentleman from
statement vesting of Qatar was dated
filed by beneficial November 05, 2016 but
respondents ownership of the that was not mentioned
No. 6, 7 and entities and, in this concise statement
8: consequently the filed two days later.
November properties in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 107
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

07, 2016 Respondent No. * A case of obvious and

7, in January deliberate suppression of
2006, was the facts. Qatar was not even
investment made mentioned.
by late Mian
Muhammad * The statement of the
Sharif, in the gentleman from Qatar
year 1980, from dated November 05,
the sale proceeds 2016 mentioned the
of his steel amount of investment
business in but this concise
Dubai. statement did not.

* Did not mention setting

up or sale of the factory
in Jeddah which,
according to respondent
No. 7s interviews, was
the source of funds for
purchase of the
properties in London.

Joint The four flats in * Within 8 days between

supplement London had been filing of the joint concise
-ary concise purchased by Al- statement on November
statement Thani family of 07, 2016 and filing of the
filed by Qatar through joint supplementary
respondents two offshore concise statement on
No. 6, 7 and companies, the November 15, 2016 the
8: said family had story jointly put forward
November allowed late Mian by the children of
15, 2016 Muhammad respondent No. 1
Sharif and his underwent a sea change.
family to use the Al-Thani family and
said properties investment in Qatar was
whilst bearing all introduced and
the expenses permissive user of the
relating to them properties in London was
including ground disclosed.
rent and service
charges and * Contradicted by
ultimately in respondent No. 8s
2006 the account interview with BBC in
between Al-Thani 1999 according to which
family and he was then a student
Respondent No.7 living in these flats
was settled which had been taken on
through which rent and the rent for the
the properties same was sent from
were transferred Pakistan on a quarterly
to him by delivery basis.
of the bearer
shares of the * Contradicted by both
companies to a the parents of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 108
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

nominee of respondents No. 6, 7 and

respondent No. 7. 8 who have consistently
maintained that the said
properties had been
purchased or bought.

* No material produced
to show who paid the
utility bills and taxes,
etc. relevant to the said
properties before 2006.

Further After a settlement * Contradicted by

statement of the investment respondent No. 7s
filed by of Mian stance in different
respondents Muhammad interviews wherein he
No. 7 and 8 Sharif a balance had maintained that the
jointly: amount of over 8 properties in London had
January 26, million US been bought by him
2017 Dollars was through using the
determined as proceeds of sale of the
payable by the Al- factory in Jeddah.
Thani family of
Qatar to * Contradicted by both
respondent No. 7. the parents of
It was agreed respondents No. 6, 7 and
that the balance 8 who have consistently
amount payable maintained that the said
would be properties had been
considered purchased or bought.
discharged upon
transfer to
respondent No. 7
of the shares of
two companies,
M/s Nielsen
Enterprises
Limited and
Nescoll Limited
that held title to
the four flats in
London.

Respondent No. Interview on Categorically * Contradicted by his

8: Hard Talk, stated that he mother who had told
Mr. Hassan BBC was a student Guardian newspaper of
Nawaz Sharif London: with no earnings London that the said
November of his own, he did flats had been bought
1999 not own the because the children
relevant flats in were studying in London.
London but he
was living in the * Contradicted by his
same on rent and father who never talked
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 109
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the money for his about taking the relevant

living in those flats on rent.
properties came
from Pakistan on * Contradicted by two
a quarterly basis. statements of the
gentleman from Qatar
who maintained that
permissive possession of
the flats had been given
to the family of Mian
Muhammad Sharif with
no charge.

The facts mentioned above are neither disputed nor intricate. The

material referred to above is not controverted by respondent No. 1

or his children and the same material is in fact also relied upon by

the petitioners. None of the parties has asked us to record any

evidence or to call for any evidence. No detailed assessment of such

material is required because the material speaks for itself. Res ipsa

loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Even a layman can appreciate,

and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude, that what had

been told to the nation, the National Assembly or even this Court

about how the relevant properties in London had been acquired

was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk, Dera Ghazi

Khan (a counterpart of Lord Dennings man on the Clapham

omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching that conclusion.

However, that is not all as much more is still to follow.

84. On one of the dates of hearing of these petitions Mr.

Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC, the then learned counsel for

the children of respondent No. 1, dramatically, and with theatrical

impact, took out an envelope from his brief and produced before

the Court a document containing a statement of one Mr. Hamad

Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani who statedly belongs to the royal

family of Qatar and had remained a Prime Minister of that country

in the past. That statement was made on November 05, 2016 and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 110
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the signatures of the gentleman on that statement had been

attested by the Ambassador of Pakistan to Qatar on the same day.

That statement was not an affidavit nor the contents of the same

had been attested by any authority or authorized person. The

contents of that document are reproduced below for facility of

reference:

Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani

5 November 2016

I, the undersigned, do hereby state the following:

1. My father had longstanding business relations with

Mr. Mian Muhammad Sharif, which were
coordinated through my eldest brother. Our
Families enjoyed and continue to enjoy personal
relations.

2. I was informed that during the year 1980, Mr.

Mian Muhammad Sharif expressed his desire to
invest a certain amount of money in real estate
business of Al Thani family in Qatar.

3. I understood at that time, that an aggregate sum of

around 12 Million Dirhams (AED 12,000,000) was
contributed by Mr. Mian Muhammad Sharif,
originating from the sale of business in Dubai,
UAE.

4. The properties Flat # 17, Flat # 17a, Flat # 16, Flat

# 16a at Avenfield House, Park Lane, London were
registered in the ownership of two offshore
companies, bearer share certificates of which were
kept during that time in Qatar. These were
purchased from the proceeds of the real estate
business.

On account of relationship between the families,

Mr. Mian Muhammad Sharif and his family used
the Properties whilst bearing all expenses relating
to the Properties, including the ground rent and
service charges.

5. I can recall that during his life time, Mr. Mian

Muhammad Sharif wished that the beneficiary of
his investment and returns in the real estate
business is his Grandson, Mr. Hussain Nawaz
Sharif.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 111
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

6. In the year 2006, the accounts in relation to the

above investment were settled between Mr. Hussain
Nawaz Sharif & Al Thani family, who then delivered
the bearer shares of the companies referred in para
4 above to a representative of Mr. Hussain Nawaz
Sharif.

The foregoing, as far as my recollection of events and the available

records in Doha, depicts the relationship between the families.

This statement is private and confidential; it cannot be used or

disclosed to any party without my prior written consent, except to
the benefit of the courts and regulators of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan.

(signed)
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani

Signature of H. E. Sheikh
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber
Al Thani is ATTESTED.
(signed)
(Shahzad Ahmad)
Ambassador of Pakistan
Doha-Qatar
(seal)

That document was dropped on the Court like a bombshell hoping

that the same would destroy the allegations leveled in the present

petitions by explaining as to how the properties in London had

come in possession of respondent No. 1s family and in the

ownership of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, a son of respondent No. 1,

and putting to rest the controversy about availability as well as

legitimacy of the resources for acquisition of those properties. It is,

however, ironical that the said bombshell has caused more damage

to the case of respondent No. 1 and his children than to the case of

the petitioners. In fact the devastation wreaked by that document

upon the case of respondent No. 1 and his children may be

incalculable and beyond their contemplation.

85. The first thought that comes to mind in the context of the

said statement of Mr. Al-Thani is about its timing. In the first

address to the nation respondent No. 1 talked about a factory near

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 112
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Makkah but not about any factory in Dubai and certainly not

about any real estate business in Qatar as the source of funds for

acquisition of the properties in London. In his second address to

the nation respondent No. 1 did not talk about any specific source

of funds for such acquisition at all. In his speech in the National

Assembly respondent No. 1 introduced the factory in Dubai and

the proceeds of its sale besides the purchase and sale of a factory

in Jeddah (not near Makkah) but uttered no word about any

investment in Qatar or any resource becoming available through

any real estate business in Qatar. In those speeches respondent

No. 1 had categorically said that those were the funds and

resources through which the properties in London had been

purchased and also that he had given the entire background of

his familys business and he had informed his countrymen about

all the important stages of his familys journey in business. He had

maintained on that occasion that the true facts had been fully

brought to the knowledge of his dear countrymen. He had also

claimed that nothing had been concealed by him and that

everything was like an open book. The subsequently introduced

statement from Qatar, however, established beyond doubt that the

speeches made by respondent No. 1 before the nation or its

representatives in the National Assembly were not the whole truth

and the book presented by him had many missing pages. When the

speeches made by respondent No. 1 before the nation or its

representatives in the National Assembly are juxtaposed with the

above mentioned statement received from Qatar it becomes obvious

that they are mutually destructive and cannot coexist

simultaneously as the truth. The speeches spoke of purchase of

the properties in London whereas the statement from Qatar spoke

of transfer of those properties as a result of a settlement in the

backdrop of an earlier investment in real estate business in Qatar.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 113
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

The speeches spoke of a route of funds which was Makkah-London

or Dubai-Jeddah-London but the statement from Qatar disclosed a

totally different route, i.e. Dubai-Doha-London. An impression is,

thus, unavoidable that all was not well with the divergent

explanations being advanced and it was not just the resources and

the routes of resources which were being changed from time to

time but it was the truth which was being improved, moulded

and sacrificed at the altar of expedience. It is of critical importance

to mention here that even in his concise statements submitted by

respondent No. 1 before this Court in connection with the present

petitions the said respondent has not said a word about any

investment in real estate business in Qatar or about some funds

becoming available through a settlement in respect of such

business!

86. The above mentioned statement from Qatar has multiple

other problems with it as well. It is obvious from that statement

itself that the maker of the statement did not have personal

knowledge of most of the critical things stated therein and even for

the remaining things stated he was evasive at best. He had failed to

disclose how the requisite funds were transferred by respondent

No. 1s father from Dubai to Qatar. He had not referred to any date

or place of the transactions mentioned. He had failed to state

about any document executed in furtherance of such transactions

and he had also omitted to mention as to how the relevant funds

were dealt with. No detail of the real estate business of Al-Thani

family in Qatar was provided nor any record of investment in such

business by respondent No. 1s father had been referred to. The

stated settlement of accounts in the year 2006 was mentioned in

most unspecific terms with no details thereof having been provided

and even the representative of Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 114
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

mentioned in the statement was not identified. The stated wish of

respondent No. 1s father regarding his grandson being the

beneficiary of the investment was spoken about in that statement

in most generalized terms without any exactitude and without

reference to any formal or informal instrument having been

executed in that respect. As already mentioned above, respondent

No. 1s father namely Mian Muhammad Sharif had died in the year

2004. If that were so then no will of late Mian Muhammad Sharif

was brought on the record of this case on the basis of which his

investment in Qatar could be settled in the year 2006 in favour of

one of his grandsons to the exclusion of all the legal heirs,

particularly when that grandson was not even an heir. The maker

of the above mentioned statement had never claimed in that

statement that the two offshore companies which owned the

relevant four properties in London were owned by Al-Thani family

of Qatar and all that had been maintained in that statement was

that the bearer share certificates of such companies were kept at

that time in Qatar. No record of the relevant offshore companies

was produced to show as to how and when Al-Thani family of Qatar

had allowed the family of respondent No. 1 to use the said

properties and then how those companies and properties were

transferred to the ownership of a son of respondent No. 1. As

already observed above, the said statement from Qatar has gone a

long way in irretrievably damaging the earlier stands of respondent

No. 1 and in fortifying the impression that he has not made a clean

breast of himself and with every varying stance he has exposed

himself further.

87. The learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to a

judgment dated March 16, 1999 handed down by the High Court of

Justice, Queens Bench Division, London whereby a huge sum of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 115
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

money was decreed on November 05, 1999 in favour of Al Towfeek

Company and against Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited, Mian

Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (a younger brother of respondent No.

1), Mian Muhammad Sharif (the father of respondent No. 1) and

Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif (another younger brother of

respondent No. 1). The record pertaining to the said judgment and

decree shows that for satisfaction of the decree the same four

properties in London which are also the subject matter of the

present petitions had been attached and subsequently on February

21, 2000 the charge/caution on those four properties was lifted by

the court upon satisfaction of the decree which was to the tune of

about 34 million US Dollars. The Directors of Hudabiya Paper Mills

Limited included Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Mariam Safdar,

respondents No. 6 and 7 herein. The said respondents and the

other defendants would not have paid such a huge amount to get

the charge/caution lifted from the four properties in London if they

had nothing to do with the ownership of those properties in the

years 1999 and 2000. Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif was aged about

28 years and had no business of his own till then, Mr. Hassan

Nawaz Sharif was a student with no personal earnings and Mariam

Safdar did not own any property at that time, as disclosed by

themselves in their interviews mentioned above. The details of that

case in London had found a specific mention in paragraph No. 113

of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Syed Zafar Ali

Shah and others v. General Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of

Pakistan and others (PLD 2000 SC 869). Apart from that the source

of funds available for making a huge payment of about 34 million

US Dollars in the year 2000 towards satisfaction of the above

mentioned decree had not been disclosed by respondent No. 1 and

his children before this Court till another statement of the same

gentleman from Qatar was filed before the Court later on.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 116
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

88. The petitioners had brought on the record of these petitions

some emails and documents based upon some correspondence

between the Financial Investigation Agency of the British Virgin

Islands and the relevant law firm namely Mossack Fonseca. The

said correspondence had taken place in the year 2012 and the

emails and documents brought on the record tended to reveal that

according to the records maintained by that law firm and the

administrator (Minerva Trust & Corporate Services Limited) of the

two offshore companies owning the relevant four properties in

London in the year 2012 Mariam Safdar was the beneficial owner

of two of such properties, there was no trust connected with the

said four properties, Mariam Safdar was a client of Minerva

Financial Services Limited at least since the year 2005 and in her

signed Personal Information Form she had maintained that the

source of her wealth was the familys wealth and business spread

over a period of 60 years. That material had prima facie seriously

damaged the case of respondent No. 1 and his children regarding

Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif being the sole beneficial owner of all the

four properties in London, the said properties having been

acquired in the year 2006 and the settlement in Qatar in the year

2006 being the source of funds for acquisition of those properties.

The said material brought on the record of these petitions by the

petitioners had, however, been denied before us by Mariam Safdar

and her brothers by maintaining that the material produced by the

petitioners was fake and bogus. As the information in the above

mentioned regards was found by us to be of some importance,

therefore, we had repeatedly required respondent No. 1 and his

children, i.e. respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 to produce before the

Court the record of both the offshore companies owning the

relevant four properties in London showing when and how the said
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 117
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

companies came to be owned by respondent No. 1 and/or his

children, or by any of them, when and how respondent No. 1

and/or his family got possession of the said properties, when and

how the said properties were acquired by respondent No. 1 and/or

his children and was any trust connected with those properties

existed on the record of the relevant companies or their

administrator or not. It is unfortunate that the relevant record was

not produced before the Court and the sketchy material actually

produced was not of much assistance. Be that as it may, as the

said issues highlighted through the above mentioned emails

involved some disputed questions of fact, therefore, I have decided

not to adjudicate upon the same in the present proceedings under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution. I am mindful of the fact that the

issue in the present proceedings before this Court is not any

property or who owns it but the issue is resources for acquisition

of some property and honesty of a person in explaining availability

of such resources in the constitutional context of Article 62(1)(f)

thereof.

89. Respondent No. 8 namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif had

maintained in his interview mentioned above that he was a student

in the year 1999, he had no earnings of his own and the money

required for his stay and studies in England used to come from

Pakistan. However, in the Joint Concise Statement (Civil

Miscellaneous Application No. 7319 of 2016 filed by respondents

No. 6, 7 and 8 on November 7, 2016) respondent No. 8 had

maintained that he was conducting his own business for the last

about 22 years (since the year 1994) which was not what he had

stated in his interview with Tim Sebastian of BBC in the year

1999. The history of his independent business brought on the

record of this case starts in the year 2001 and it appears that he
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 118
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

might have concealed his business and income between the years

1994 and 2001. Respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif had stated in his interview referred to above that his brother

Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif was doing business in England since the

year 1995. Their father namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,

respondent No. 1, had stated in his first address to the nation on

April 05, 2016 that the proceeds of sale of the factory in Jeddah in

June 2005 had been utilized for setting up of his sons business.

Was respondent No. 1 being honest when he said that his sons set

up their business in the year 2005? Some uncontroverted

documents brought on the record of these petitions show that

respondent No. 8 namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif had started his

business on April 12, 2001 as Director of a British company

named Flagship Investment Limited and according to the Directors

Report of that company dated March 31, 2002 respondent No. 8

had Pounds Sterling 705,071 as the Director of that company. The

Financial Statement of that company dated March 31, 2003

showed that respondent No. 8 had made a loan to the company to

the tune of Pounds Sterling 307,761 with a balance of Pounds

Sterling 990,244 to his credit. The Financial Statement of that

company dated March 31, 2004 manifested that respondent No. 8

had made a loan to the company amounting to Pounds Sterling

593,939 with a balance of Pounds Sterling 1,606,771 to his credit.

The Financial Statement of that company dated March 31, 2005

showed that respondent No. 8 had again made a huge loan to the

company with a balance of Pounds Sterling 1,418,321 to his credit.

There was another British company by the name of Que Holdings

Limited and respondent No. 8 namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif

had 100% holding in that company. The Notes of Account of that

company dated July 31, 2004 showed that respondent No. 8 had

made a loan to the company to the tune of Pounds Sterling 99,999

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 119
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and the Financial Statement of that company dated July 31, 2005

showed that respondent No. 8 had made a loan to the company to

the tune of Pounds Sterling 541,694. A chart appended with one of

these petitions shows that respondent No. 8 had about ten

companies in England before the year 2006 and the credit

contributed by him to those companies amounted to Pounds

Sterling 2,351,877. In her Separate Concise Statement (Civil

Miscellaneous Application No. 394 of 2017 filed on January 24,

2017) respondent No. 6 had maintained that respondent No. 7 was

operating Coomber Group Inc. Company for various business

ventures of respondent No. 8. All those businesses of respondent

No. 8 were going on and the said respondent was rolling in money

in England for many years before June 2005 when, according to

respondent No. 1, the sale proceeds of the factory in Jeddah had

been given to his sons for setting up their business. Nothing has

been produced by respondent No. 1 before this Court to rebut the

above mentioned documents based upon the British public record.

90. It is of significance to mention here that in his speeches

made before the nation and in the National Assembly respondent

No. 1 had never stated in black and white that he had nothing to

do with ownership of the two offshore companies or the relevant

properties in London. However, in his concise statements

submitted by respondent No. 1 before this Court it had been so

asserted and his learned counsel argued before us with vehemence

that the said respondent was neither a Director, share holder or a

beneficial owner of the relevant offshore companies nor had he any

connection with ownership of the relevant properties. I note that

the varying assertions of the children of respondent No. 1

regarding the said companies and properties have remained

without any support from any record of those companies and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 120
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

properties. No record has been produced by them to establish that

Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif had become the owner of those

companies and properties in the year 2006. The source of funds for

payment of about 34 million US Dollars in the year 2000 for lifting

of the charge on the relevant four properties in London upon

satisfaction of a judicial decree had not been explained by them or

even by respondent No. 1 till belated filing of another statement of

the gentleman from Qatar which shall be discussed a little later. No

explanation had been offered as to why such a huge amount had

been paid by or on behalf of some of the respondents and their

relatives for lifting of the charge on those properties if they had

nothing to do with the ownership of the said properties. It had

never been explained before us till belated filing of the second

statement of the gentleman from Qatar as to how Mr. Hassan

Nawaz Sharif who was a student in the year 1999 suddenly started

rolling in money in England in the year 2001. No money trail or

record of any banking transaction was placed on the record of this

case by respondent No. 1 and his children. The inconsistencies and

gaps between the stands adopted by respondent No. 1 and his

children have remained unexplained and unfilled and the chains of

events stated by them have remained clearly broken. Respondent

No. 1 had never said anything about any investment in real estate

business in Qatar and his childrens case was based exclusively on

that investment in Qatar. All this is sufficient to convince a

prudent man that all was not well with the explanations advanced

by respondent No.1 and that such explanations cannot be termed

as honest.

91. It has already been observed by me above that in his

speeches made before the nation and in the National Assembly

respondent No. 1 had never stated in black and white that he had
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 121
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

nothing to do with ownership of the two offshore companies or the

relevant properties in London. In his speeches and the concise

statements respondent No. 1 had also failed to take a specific and

categorical stand that his children, or one of them, had acquired

those properties through their/his own funds. Nothing has been

produced before this Court to show or establish that respondent

No. 1s children, or any of them, were/was in a position to

purchase the said expensive properties in the year 2006 as no

proof whatsoever has been produced about their businesses or

financial conditions at that stage. If Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif had

started doing business in England in the year 2001 with

undisclosed sources of income then he could have claimed that it

was with his financial support that his brother Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif had purchased the relevant properties in London in the year

2006 but that was never the stand taken by Mr. Hassan Nawaz

Sharif, Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif or even respondent No. 1. In his

above mentioned interview dated March 07, 2016 Mr. Hussain

Nawaz Sharif had stated that I have three offshore companies in

London and I admit that the apartments in Park Lane are ours.

In other words he had admitted that the offshore companies

owning the relevant properties might have been owned in his name

but the said properties belonged to the family! The Guardian,

London had quoted respondent No. 1s lady wife namely Mrs.

Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif on April 10, 2000 as saying that the

relevant properties in London had been bought because her

children were studying in England at that time. The explanation

advanced by respondent No. 1s children that the said properties

had been acquired from the proceeds of a settlement of real estate

business in Qatar was not an explanation advanced by respondent

No. 1 and the sole basis of that explanation was a statement of a

gentleman from Qatar which statement was, as discussed earlier,

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 122
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

nothing but an apology of an explanation. Apart from that all the

explanations put forward by respondent No. 1 and his children,

even if accepted at their face value, show that all the funds of the

family in Dubai, Jeddah and Qatar belonged to respondent No. 1s

father namely Mian Muhammad Sharif who had passed away in

the year 2004. If that were so then all his assets and funds would

have automatically devolved upon his heirs including respondent

No. 1 and if the properties in London had been acquired through

those assets and funds in the year 2006 then the said assets and

funds included respondent No. 1s share of inheritance and such

share had contributed towards acquisition of the properties in

London. No will of Mian Muhammad Sharif has been brought on

the record by respondent No. 1 and his children to show as to why

and how the entire proceeds of the stated settlement of real estate

business of late Mian Muhammad Sharif in Qatar had been

handed over to his grandson who was not his heir and all the heirs

of the deceased had been deprived of such proceeds. The family

settlement qua inheritance of late Mian Muhammad Sharif had

come about in the year 2009. There was, thus, a real likelihood

that the relevant properties in London had actually been

purchased or acquired by respondent No. 1 but ownership of the

same had been shown in the name of one of his sons namely Mr.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif and that respondent No. 1 has not been

honest in his oscillating and vacillating explanations advanced in

that respect at different stages.

92. When the above mentioned issues were highlighted by the

Court during the hearing of these petitions there landed another

statement of the same gentleman from Qatar and this time he had

the following to tell the Court:

Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 123
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

22 December 2016

It has come to my attention that certain queries have been raised

with respect to my statement dated 5 November 2016.

In response to such queries, I wish to clarify that in 1980, Mr.

Mian Muhammad Sharif (Mr. Sharif), a longstanding and trusted
business partner of my father, made an investment (the
Investment) of approximately twelve million AED in the real
estate business of the Al-Thani family. This investment was made
by way of provision of cash, which was common practice in the
Gulf region at the time of the investment and also, given the
longstanding relationship between my father and Mr. Sharif, a
customary way for them to do business as between themselves.

At the end of 2005, after reconciling all accruals and other

distributions made over the term of the investment, it was agreed
that an amount of approximately $ 8,000,000 was due to Mr.
Sharif. In accordance with Mr. Sharifs wishes, the amount due to
him was settled in 2006 by way of the delivery to Mr. Hussain
Nawaz Sharifs representative of bearer shares of Nescoll Limited
and Nielsen Enterprises Limited, which had been kept during
that time in Qatar.

This statement is private and confidential; it cannot be used or

disclosed to any party without my prior written consent, except to
the benefit of the courts and regulators of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan.

(signed)
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani

Signature of H. E. Sheikh
Hamad Bin Jassim Bin
Jaber Al-Thani is
ATTESTED.
(signed) 10th January 2017.
(Shahzad Ahmad)
Ambassador of Pakistan
Doha-Qatar
(seal)

It is noteworthy that both the statements of the gentleman from

Qatar produced before this Court talked about longstanding

business relations and partnership between the said gentlemans

father and the father of respondent No. 1 which relationship and

partnership existed even prior to the investment made by

respondent No. 1s father in Qatar in the year 1980 after sale of the

factory in Dubai. No details of the previous business dealings have

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 124
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been provided to this Court and, therefore, it is not clear as to

where such business was conducted, any money for such business

was generated out of Pakistan or money for such business was

laundered from Pakistan through illegal means or unofficial

channels.

93. The first statement of the gentleman from Qatar showed that

the final settlement of the investment made by Mian Muhammad

Sharif took place with Al-Thani family and not with Mr. Hamad Bin

Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani and the said gentleman did not claim to

be the person dealing with the matter of the settlement personally

and he was not the one who had handed over the bearer share

certificates of the two offshore companies owning the relevant

properties in London personally to anybody. In both the statements

of that gentleman it had not been disclosed as to how 12 million

Dirhams had been delivered to the gentlemans father on behalf of

respondent No. 1s father and who was the representative of

respondent No. 7 who had received the bearer share certificates of

the two offshore companies. In the first affidavit of Mr. Tariq Shafi

dated November 12, 2016 Qatar was not mentioned at all despite

the fact that by that time the first statement of the gentleman from

Qatar was already available but in his second affidavit sworn on

January 20, 2017 and placed before the Court subsequently Mr.

Tariq Shafi maintained as follows:

3. That the sum of UAE Dirhams twelve million was

deposited by me in cash with Mr. Fahad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al
Thani of Qatar after receipt of each installment from Mr.
Muhammad Abdullah Kayed Ahli. This deposit was made by me
on the instructions of my uncle, late Mian Muhammad Sharif.
4. That at that time Mr. Fahad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al
Thani was frequently present in Dubai in connection with his
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 125
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

business activities and received the net aggregate cash payment

of UAE Dirhams twelve millions from me in Dubai.

No independent proof has, however, been produced before this

Court in this regard, no statement of Mr. Fahad Bin Jassim Bin

Jaber Al-Thani has been brought on the record and we have found

it hard to believe that a sum of 12 million Dirhams in cash had

been handed over to another without obtaining any receipt or

keeping any record. Through filing of a Joint Further Statement by

respondents No. 7 and 8 the Court was informed that one Waqar

Ahmad had collected the bearer share certificates from one Nasir

Khamis in London in January 2006 for their delivery to respondent

No. 7 but no independent proof in that regard has been produced

before this Court either.

94. That story about investment in the real estate business of Al-

Thani family in Qatar has taken many turns in this case and has,

thus, lost its credibility. In their first concise statement jointly filed

by respondent No. 1s children they had never mentioned that

story. In their subsequent concise statements they adopted that

story as their only story. However, in their last Joint and Further

Concise Statement (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of

2017 filed on January 23, 2017) the sons of respondent No. 1 gave

the story another twist. The previous story was about an

investment made by late Mian Muhammad Sharif in the real

estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar but through their last

story advanced through the above mentioned concise statement it

was maintained by respondent No. 1s sons that the proceeds of

sale of the factory in Dubai (12 million Dirhams) had been placed

with Sheikh Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani who retained the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 126
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

amount with an assurance of just and equitable return. According

to the latest story there was no investment involved in the matter

and the services of a member of Al-Thani family of Qatar had been

utilized only for parking of the relevant amount with him, probably

as a bank!

95. In all his relevant speeches or his concise statements filed

before this Court respondent No. 1 never mentioned Qatar or any

investment made by the family in that country. The first statement

of the gentleman from Qatar is dated November 05, 2016 but in

their Joint Concise Statement filed by respondent No. 1s three

children on November 07, 2016 they did not mention Qatar or any

investment made by their elders in Qatar at all. Even in all the

above mentioned interviews given by respondent No. 1s lady wife

and children Qatar or any family investment in that country had

failed to find any mention. It was at a later stage that Qatar and

the family investment in that country suddenly emerged on the

scene and respondent No. 1s children then adopted that as the

only source through which the relevant properties in London had

been acquired. If that story is correct then the investment in Qatar

was made when respondent No. 1s children were toddlers, or at

best minors, and they remembered about that investment but

unfortunately respondent No. 1 had completely forgotten about the

same and he still continues to do so! Such loss of memory, and

that too about the most crucial aspect of the present case, cannot

be presumed by the Court and it, therefore, appears that

respondent No. 1 has deliberately suppressed the relevant facts or

he has conveniently allowed himself to go along with a false story

advanced by his children. Apart from that the alternate story about

purchase of the relevant properties in London propounded by

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 127
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

him, which runs completely contrary to the story about acquisition

of the said properties on the basis of a settlement of the business

in Qatar, had not been substantiated by respondent No. 1 through

any tangible material. He has failed to produce anything before this

Court as to how money was generated and transferred to Dubai for

setting up a factory there, where were the proceeds of sale of the

factory in Dubai kept or utilized between the years 1980 and 2000,

how was the money generated and transferred to Jeddah for setting

up a factory there and then how the proceeds of sale of the factory

in Jeddah were transferred to London for purchase of the

relevant properties there. No banking transaction and no money

trail has been referred to or established by him. Respondent No. 1

is our elected representative and our Prime Minister and we

expected him to take us into confidence in the above mentioned

matters so that he could come out clean in the matter but

unfortunately he has done nothing before us so as to clear his

name or confirm his probity. Apart from that when a court of law

requires a person to explain his position in respect of something,

particularly when he had himself repeatedly volunteered to explain

his position before any court or forum inquiring into the same, his

silence before the court or adopting an evasive approach reflects

adversely upon his bona fide and honesty in the matte.

96. In two of his speeches respondent No. 1 had talked about

setting up of a factory in Jeddah but the sources of funds for that

venture had also remained an enigma and the following chart

highlights the same:

Respondents Medium Stance Problems

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 128
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No. Address to During the days * Sale of the factory in

1: the nation: of forced exile Dubai was not mentioned
Mian April 05, our father once in that speech the
Muhammad 2016 again proceeds of which were
Nawaz Sharif established a apparently used in
steel factory establishment of the
near the city of factory in Jeddah.
Makkah.
* Loan from friends not
This factory mentioned by respondent
was established No. 1 as mentioned by
for which loans respondent No. 7 in his
were obtained interviews on January 19,
from Saudi 2016 and March 7, 2016.
banks.

Speech in In exile our * Mentioned funds from

the National father once sale of the factory in Dubai
Assembly: again which funds were not
May 16, established a mentioned in the earlier
2016 steel factory in address to the nation.
Jeddah. Among
the primary
source of funds
which helped in
establishing
that factory
was the funds
received from
the sale of the
factory in
Dubai.

Respondent No. Interview on Our good old * Did not mention the
7: Capital friends gave us settlement of investment in
Mr. Hussain Talk, Geo loan, which was Qatar as the source of
Nawaz Sharif News later paid off. funds for setting up the
television: factory in Jeddah as was
January 19, subsequently disclosed
2016 through the worksheet
from Qatar.

Interview on We were given * Did not mention the

Kal Tak, loans by friends returns from 12 million
Express and Saudi Dirham investment in
News banks. Qatar as the source of
television: funds for setting up the
March 7, Their loans factory in Jeddah.
2016 have been
returned. * Stance clearly showed
that loans were obtained
Personal from friends which were
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 129
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

friends gave us paid back.

loans. Those
have been paid * Money given by Al-Thani
back before the family was not loans. If
agreed time. loans were obtained from
friends and were returned
then the story about
settlement of investment in
Qatar and some part of it
being adjusted for setting
up a factory in Jeddah was
false.

Joint No stance taken

Concise regarding the
Statement source of funds
(CMA No. for setting up
3719 of the factory in
2016) Jeddah.

Joint No stance taken * In this concise statement

Supplement regarding the the investment in Qatar
-ary source of funds was introduced for the first
Concise for setting up time but there was no
Statement the factory in mention of any money
filed by Jeddah. received from the
respondents investment in Qatar
No. 6, 7 and having been utilized for
8 (CMA No. setting up the factory in
7531 of Jeddah.
2016) on
November * In the subsequent CMA
15, 2016 No. 432 of 2017 it was
maintained by
respondents No. 7 and 8
that in 2005 respondent
No. 7 was told that the
money he received for
setting up the factory in
Jeddah was from returns
of the investment in Qatar!

Further 7. That over * This source contradicted

Statement the period 2001 respondent No. 7s
filed by to 2003 the late interviews wherein he
respondents Grandfather of mentioned the source of
No. 7 and 8 Respondent no. funds for setting up the
(CMA No. 7 arranged for factory in Jeddah as loans
432 of the benefit of from friends and Saudi
2017) on Respondent No. banks.
January 23, 7 US dollars
2017 5.41 million for * This source was not
investing in the mentioned in the initial
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 130
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

setting up of Al concise statement (CMA

Azizia Steel No. 3719 of 2016).
Company
Limited. These * It is incredible that
transfer of respondent No. 7 was said
funds were to have set up the factory
caused by the in Jeddah but for many
Al-Thani family years after setting up the
on the request factory he did not know
of Respondent where the funds for setting
No. 7s up that factory had come
grandfather from until he was told
Mian about it by one Nasir
Muhammad Khamis in 2005!
Sharif. This fact
was stated to * The worksheet about the
Respondent No. investment in Qatar and
7 by Sheikh disbursement of the
Hamad bin relevant amounts showed
Jassim bin that the funds for setting
Jaber Al up the factory in Jeddah
Thanis had been transferred
representative, directly in favour of
Nasir Khamis, respondent No. 7 in his
at the time of own name.
an overall
settlement in * It is unbelievable that
late 2005. The respondent No. 7s father
equity caused (respondent No. 1) or his
to be injected grandfather did not tell
by the Late him about those funds but
Mian one Nasir Khamis of Qatar
Muhammad told him about it in 2005.
Sharif, along
with borrowings * This information about
from financial the source of funds for
institutions, setting up the factory in
was utilized for Jeddah was available with
the setting up respondent No. 7 when he
of the aforesaid gave the above mentioned
steel interviews but he did not
manufacturing mention it even then.
plant near
Makkah, * According to the
Kingdom of interviews given by
Saudi Arabia. respondent No. 7 the
funds for setting up the
factory in Jeddah had
come from Saudi banks
and loans given by friends
whereas in his speech in
the National Assembly
respondent No. 1 had
maintained that the basic
investment for setting up
the factory in Jeddah
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 131
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

came from proceeds of sale

of the factory in Dubai.

A bare look at this chart makes one wonder where truth and

honesty stand in the list of priorities of respondent No. 1 and his

children. The most unbelievable part of the story about setting up

of the factory in Jeddah is told through the second statement of

the gentleman from Qatar dated December 22, 2016 wherein it is

maintained that between the years 2001 and 2003 Al-Thani family

of Qatar had transferred 5.41 million US Dollars in favour of

respondent No. 7 for investing in setting up a factory in Jeddah

and that information was supplied to respondent No. 7 by one

Nasir Khamis, a representative of Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber

Al-Thani, at the time of over all settlement of the investment at the

end of the year 2005. The said story wants this Court to believe

that respondent No. 7 was given a huge sum of 5.41 million US

Dollars between the years 2001 and 2003 but he was told about it

in the year 2005! As against that in one of his interviews given

much later than 2005 respondent No. 7 had maintained that loans

had been obtained from friends and banks for setting up the

factory in Jeddah which loans had then been repaid before the

time due. We have also been told that the said factory in Jeddah

had been sold in the year 2005 and it had fetched 20,630,000

Riyals (about 17 million US Dollars) but no banking transaction or

money trail in that regard has been produced before this Court

showing from where did that money come and then where did it go.

97. Invoking the concept of parliamentary privilege the learned

counsel for respondent No. 1 had argued that the said respondent

could not be held liable for anything said by him in a speech made
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 132
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

in the National Assembly on May 16, 2016 and in this context he

relied upon Article 66(1) of the Constitution which reads as under:

66. (1) Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of

procedure of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), there shall be freedom
of speech in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and no member shall be
liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said
or any vote given by him in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), and no
person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under
the authority of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) of any report,
paper, votes or proceedings.

He maintained that the historical and universally acknowledged

parliamentary privilege recognized by the said Article of the

Constitution is subject only to two provisions of the Constitution

and they are Article 68 and Article 204 which deal with restriction

on discussion in the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with respect to

conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the

discharge of his duties and commission of contempt of court. I

have, however, found that for various reasons the issue of

parliamentary privilege is not relevant to the case in hand. To start

with, the relevant speech made by respondent No. 1 was not just a

speech made in the National Assembly but it was also an address

to the nation because of live radio and television coverage of it. It is

not denied that at least four or five microphones of different

television companies including the official Pakistan Television were

placed on the desk of respondent No. 1 and a television camera

was placed right in front of him when he had made that speech

and that speech was broadcast and telecast live on the national

hookup. Apart from that by making that speech respondent No. 1

had merely utilized the floor of the National Assembly for

advancing a personal explanation regarding a matter which was

not even on the agenda of the National Assembly on the relevant

day and was personal to himself and his family. This Court in the

cases of Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD 1975 SC
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 133
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

383) and Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and

others (PLD 1998 SC 823) and the United Kingdom Supreme Court

in the case of Regina v. Chaytor (2011 UKSC 52), [2011] 1 A.C. 684

SC-UK have already clarified that parliamentary privilege is

relevant to the core or essential business of Parliament, which

consists of collective deliberation and decision making or which

relates in any way to the legislative or deliberative processes of the

Parliament or of its Members, however widely construed and

parliamentary privilege does not protect criminal acts merely

because such acts are committed within the precincts of the

Parliament. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent

No. 1 that the parliamentary privilege recognized by Article 66(1) of

the Constitution is subject only to Articles 68 and 204 of the

Constitution has not been found by me to be correct because

Article 66(1) is subject to all the other provisions of the

Constitution and not just the two provisions indicated by the

learned counsel. In an appropriate case it may be argued that

Article 66(1) of the Constitution is also subject to Article 62(1)(f)

thereof requiring a member of the Parliament to be honest in

everything stated by him in the Parliament and there being no

parliamentary privilege in respect of stating something which is

untrue. It had been held by this Court in the case of Syed Masroor

Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (PLD 1998 SC

823) that parliamentary privilege under Art 66 of the Constitution

was not absolute and exceptions to the same existed. It was also

held in that case that no immunity or privilege existed against

criminal, illegal or unconstitutional acts committed in the

Parliament. It is also pertinent to note that the parliamentary

privilege under Article 66(1) of the Constitution is in respect of

liability to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said

in the Parliament but in the present case the speech made by

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 134
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

respondent No. 1 is not the basis of any liability to any proceeding

in a court and that speech is being referred to in the present

proceedings only as a circumstance in a series of circumstances

showing lack of honesty of the said respondent before the nation,

before the representatives of the nation in the National Assembly

and before this Court. Surely, respondent No. 1 is not being

proceeded against for making that speech and the said speech is

being utilized in the present proceedings only for a collateral

purpose to determine as to whether the said respondent had been

making divergent statements on the same issue at different

occasions or not and as to whether he had been honest in the

matter or not. It had been held in the case of Buchanan v.

Jennings [2005] 1 A.C. 115, [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 2 All ER 273

(Privy Council) that a speech in the Parliament could be used to

establish some fact as evidence rather than making it the basis of

the proceedings.

98. The matter of payment of about 34 million US Dollars to Al-

Towfeek Company towards satisfaction of the decree in London,

mentioned above, is equally bizarre. In his Supplementary Concise

Statement respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif had

maintained that he was informed by a representative of Al-Thani

family of Qatar that 8 million US Dollars had been paid by that

family to Al-Towfeek Company in the year 2002 for satisfaction of

the relevant decree and he was further informed that the said

payment had been made on the instructions of Mian Muhammad

Sharif. No record of such payment has been produced before this

Court and even the person informing respondent No. 7 in that

regard has not been identified. Both the statements of the

gentleman from Qatar produced before this Court had failed even
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 135
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to refer to any such payment of 8 million US Dollars by Al-Thani

family of Qatar towards satisfaction of the decree in London

through which the relevant four properties in London, which were

in occupation of respondent No. 1 and his family at that time, were

got released from the caution placed on them. Apart from that the

decree was for about 34 million US Dollars but it was maintained

that the decree was satisfied by paying Al-Towfeek Company only 8

million US Dollars. No documentary proof was produced before us

to show as to how much amount was actually paid and who paid

it. No record of the concerned court was produced and it was not

shown what mode or channel was utilized for making the payment.

99. The bottom line is that according to the sons of respondent

No. 1, as is evident from the their Joint Further Statement (Civil

Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2017 filed on January 23,

2017) the 12 million Dirhams placed with Al-Thani family of

Qatar by their grandfather late Mian Muhammad Sharif and

retained by that family (which was no longer called by the sons of

respondent No. 1 as an investment in real estate business in

Qatar) were utilized in the following manner till the time that

chapter was finally closed and wound up in the year 2005:

(i) 8 million US Dollars paid by Al-Thani family to

Al-Towfeek Company in the year 2002 towards
satisfaction of the decree in London,

(ii) 5.4 million US Dollars given to respondent No.

7 for setting up a factory in Jeddah between 2001 and
2004,

(iii) 4.2 million US Dollars given to respondent No.

8 for setting up his business in the United Kingdom
between 2001 and 2004 and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 136
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(iv) the remaining about 8 million US Dollars

adjusted and settled by delivering bearer share
certificates to a representative of respondent No. 7 and
thereby transferring ownership of the two offshore
companies and the relevant four properties in London
in favour of respondent No. 7.

And what was the evidence produced before this Court in respect

of all those millions of US Dollars rolling around? It is amazing and

unbelievable. The following two handwritten documents were all

that had been produced before this Court in support of all those

transactions:
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 137
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

We have been told that the last of the said documents is a

worksheet which reads in English language as follows:

Nothing has been produced before this Court to establish or even

indicate as to who had prepared those documents, where those

documents were kept, what was the authenticity of those

documents, how the relevant amounts were disbursed and by

whom. The said documents are not backed by any banking

transaction and no money trail has even been hinted at. The claim

regarding handling of some money in cash may be accepted with a

pinch of salt as far as the transactions taking place in the Middle

Eastern countries are concerned but cash running in millions of

US Dollars being transferred to the United Kingdom and then

utilization of such cash in some business in that country or for

acquisition of property there may be very hard to believe or accept

in the absence of any legitimate transfer, a banking transaction, a

money trail or a proper and lawful disclosure. If that is how it all

actually happened then it would be nothing but money laundering.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 138
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

100. Money laundering is an allegation which is not new to

respondent No. 1 and his close relative respondent No. 10. The

learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn our attention

towards a very detailed and documented report prepared and

submitted by Mr. A. Rehman Malik in September 1998 in his

capacity as an Additional Director, Federal Investigation Agency,

Islamabad and that report tended to establish the money trail

through which the relevant four properties in London and many

other properties and businesses had been purchased or set up by

respondent No. 1 in the names of his children through opening of

fake and fictitious bank accounts, clandestine money transfers

amounting to money laundering and use of huge unaccounted for

money. According to that report all that had happened in the

1990s and much prior to sale of the factory in Jeddah in June

2005 and the claimed settlement of the real estate business in

Qatar in the year 2005. Almost all the transactions mentioned in

that report were supported by the names of the concerned banks,

the numbers of bank accounts, the numbers of the cheques issued

and the origin and the destination of the money transferred. I

understand that a lot of effort must have gone into digging out the

relevant details and a lot of resources of the State must have been

consumed in the entire exercise. I have, however, felt agonized by

the fact that the matter had later on been hushed up, brushed

under the carpet and never pursued by any quarter with the result

that the facts asserted in that report could not be ascertained or

verified by any court of competent jurisdiction. I have, therefore,

abstained from referring to the contents of that report or from

relying upon that report in the present proceedings. We have been

informed that the same Mr. A. Rehman Malik who had prepared

the above mentioned report had later on joined politics and had

served the country as the Minister for Interior, Government of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 139
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Pakistan for many years but he never took any step to pursue the

matter against respondents No. 1 and 10 at all. It appears that

politics had trumped accountability and discretion had the better

of public interest.

101. Respondent No. 1s brush with criminal law is also not new.

In the case of Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan

and others (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1584) two FIRs had been registered by

the Federal Investigation Authority in the year 1994 and Challans

in respect of such FIRs had been submitted before the competent

court with the allegations that respondent No. 1 and others had

indulged in serious corruption and money laundering, etc. Those

Challans had been quashed later on at a time when respondent

No. 1 was serving as the Prime Minister of the country. In the case

of Messers Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of

Pakistan and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 667) a Reference had been

filed by the National Accountability Bureau against respondent No.

1 and others with the allegations of corruption and money

laundering, etc. but even that Reference was quashed during the

incumbency of respondent No. 1 as the Prime Minister of the

country. In the case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State

(PLD 2009 SC 814) respondent No. 1 had been convicted and

sentenced on April 06, 2000 by an Anti-Terrorism Court for

offences under section 402-B, PPC and section 7(f) of the Anti-

Terrorism Act, 1997 on the allegation of highjacking a commercial

aeroplane and thereby committing the offence of terrorism but

later on he was acquitted of the charge by this Court on July 17,

2009. In the case of Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar

Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army

Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1) a declaration was recorded by

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 140
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution to the effect that corruption and corrupt practices

had been committed in the holding of a general election in the

country and in the judgment passed in that case respondent No.

1s stated involvement in the matter had been referred to twice in

that context and the matter of criminality of respondent No. 1 and

others in that connection was required to be investigated by the

Federal Investigation Agency. Unfortunately no investigation in that

matter has so far been conducted for obvious reasons. In the case

of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State (PLD 2010 Lahore

81) respondent No. 1 had been convicted and sentenced by an

Accountability Court on July 22, 2000 but subsequently his

conviction and sentence had been set aside by the Lahore High

Court on June 26, 2009. In that case the allegation was that in

October 1993 respondent No. 1 had purchased a helicopter and

had used and maintained the same for his election campaign

whereas the costs and maintenance expenses incurred by

respondent No. 1 were beyond his known sources of income.

Respondent No. 1 had been acquitted in that case because it had

been shown that the helicopter was actually purchased by one

Abdul Rehman Bin Nasir Al-Thani of Qatar. The said gentleman

from Al-Thani family of Qatar is statedly a close relative of Mr.

Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani whose two statements have

been produced before this Court in the present proceedings in

support of respondent No. 1 and his children. It appears that close

friendship between Al-Thani family of Qatar and respondent No. 1

and his family has stood the test of time. It is proverbial that a

friend in need is a friend indeed. Being a foreign dignitary Mr.

Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is held by me in high

esteem yet the information about him available on the Internet is

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 141
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

unfortunately quite uncharitable and the same is reproduced

below without making any comment of my own on the same:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Jassim_bin_Jaber_Al_

Thani)

Legal issues

BAE Systems

Following courting by Michael Portillo, Qatar entered into an arms

deal worth 500 million with BAE Systems. [15] 7 million was
transferred into two trusts in Jersey of which Hamad was named
as a beneficiary. In an attempt to prevent money laundering, the
funds were frozen from 16 July 2000 by the Jersey Financial
Services Commission, who then began a court case and
investigation.[14] Hamad paid the Jersey authorities 6 million as
a "voluntary reparation" as "the structures put in place by his
advisers may have contributed to the cost and complexity of the
inquiry." The case was then dropped by the Jersey authorities.[5]

Fawaz Al-Attiya

HBJ is facing a lawsuit brought on by Fawaz Al-Attiya, former

official spokesman for Qatar, who says that agents acting on
behalf of HBJ imprisoned and tortured him in Doha for 15
months from 2009-2011. Al-Attiya says that he was kept in
solitary confinement, only let out of handcuffs to be interrogated,
subjected to sleep deprivation, and denied proper access to food,
water, and sunlight.[16] Al-Attiya also alleged that he was not
adequately compensated for his Qatari land that was expropriated
by the state.[17] Documents submitted by Al-Attiyas lawyers state
that in 1997, HBJ offered to buy 20,000 square meters of land
from Al-Attiya in west Doha. Al-Attiya says that he refused the
offer because he felt that the land was worth more than HBJs
offer, a move that angered HBJ. He alleges that HBJ then seized
the land and subjected Al-Attiya to increasing harassment,
threats, and surveillance. A decade later in 2007, HBJ allegedly
tried to have Al-Attiya arrested in Dubai. Al-Attiya then moved to
Saudi Arabia in 2008 when a series of legal cases were filed
against him, including one that alleged that he leaked state
secrets during his tenure serving in public office. Court
documents state that Al-Attiya was forcibly taken from Saudi
Arabia to Qatar in October 2009. From then until January 2011,
Al-Attiya was held in various prisons around Qatar. Attiya was
told by Qatars assistant attorney during this time that he was
being detained at the behest of the prime minister (Hamad bin
Jassim), that there was no intention to release him and that any
attempt to secure release through securing a court orderwould
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 142
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

either be prevented or any such order would not be carried out.

Attiya was ultimately released on orders of the crown prince.[5]

After his release, HBJ filed another case against Attiya claiming
that he had forged a check worth 3 million riyals and as a result
owed money to Qatar National Bank. This case was also dropped
due to intervention by the crown prince.[16]

HBJ denies all claims against him in regards to Fawaz Al-Attiya

and says that he has diplomatic immunity and state immunity
given his diplomatic position in London, leaving Londons High
Court without jurisdiction. No decision has been made yet as to
whether his diplomatic immunity will extend to this case.[16][18]

Heritage Oil

In June 2014, HBJ acquired 80% of Heritage Oil, which was listed
as a London exploration and production company. At the same
time, he was listed as a Counsellor at the Qatari embassy and
as such was privileged to legal immunity under the 1961 Vienna
Convention. Article 42 of this convention states that a diplomat
shall not in the receiving State practise for personal profit any
professional or commercial activity thereby disallowing the
acquisition in which HBJ engaged. The stake, valued at 924
million and dated April 30, 2014, transferred to a wholly owned
subsidiary of Al-Mirqab Capital, an investment company
privately owned by HBJ and his family. HBJs lawyers maintain
that the fact that the company was listed in London is not
sufficient evidence to determine that Article 42 had been violated.
[19]

Controversies

A May 2008 diplomatic cable sent by then U.S. charg d'affaires

in Doha, alluded to a dispute between HBJ and the Qatari
intelligence officials over a Qatari senior bank official imprisoned
for 6 months over his role in funding Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed (KSM), the al-Qaeda mastermind of September 11.
The senior bank official was Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy
who financed KSM while working at Qatar Central Bank.[14]

In November 2016, Pakistani Prime Minister produced a letter

from Hamad Bin Jassim to claim that the properties identified as
owned by his daughter in Panama Leaks are actually are result of
a settlement that happened in 2006. The letter was mostly based
on hearsay and soon after the first letter second letter was
produced which tried to cover up holes left in the first letter. The
properties were purchased by Sharif family from 1992-1996
through off shore companies Nescoll and Nielson. The beneficial
owner of those four flats is Maryam Safdar (daughter of Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif) according to leaked Panama papers. If the
court calls Hamad Bin Jassim to stand as the witness to prove
the worth of his letter, he could be sent to prison for lying.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 143
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Pakistan is a poor country but will definitely imprison frauds who

could help making black money white. It is alleged that Hamad
bin Jassim's companies got lucrative LNG deal worth Billions of
dollars with Pakistan through his connection with Nawaz Sharif.

102. While dwelling on the issue of money laundering I may

observe that it was argued before us by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that a number of so-called gifts made by respondent

No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif to his father also hinted at

concealment of assets, rotation of money and money laundering by

respondent No. 1 and his family. The uncontested record produced

before us showed that respondent No. 7 had sent the following

amounts of money from Saudi Arabia to respondent No. 1 as gifts:

Tax year 2011: Rs. 129,836,905

Tax year 2012: Rs. 26,610,800
Tax year 2013: Rs. 190,445,024
Tax year 2014: Rs. 197,499,348
Total: Rs. 544,392,077

Respondent No. 7 had claimed before us that he had sold the

factory in Jeddah in the year 2005 and initially he had not

disclosed that he had another factory in Saudi Arabia by the name

of Hill Metals and it was through the income generated from that

factory that he was sending gifts to his father. Respondent No. 1

and the gentleman from Qatar had never stated that the money for

setting up that factory had been provided to respondent No. 7 by

them and respondent No. 7 never disclosed before us as to how

that factory was set up or purchased by him and when. It had not

even been disclosed or established that the said factory was

actually owned by him or not. In their Joint Further Statement

(Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2017 filed on January

23, 2017) respondents No. 7 and 8 had maintained that in the year

2006 respondent No. 7 had set up a new steel manufacturing

business in Jeddah by utilizing proceeds of sale of the earlier

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 144
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

factory in Jeddah. Respondent No. 1 had, however, maintained in

his speech in the National Assembly that the proceeds of sale of

the factory in Jeddah had been utilized for purchase of the

relevant properties in London! In one of his interviews mentioned

above respondent No. 7 had categorically stated that the proceeds

of sale of the factory in Jeddah had been officially transferred to

London for purchase of the relevant properties in that city. Even

when considered in the context of the claimed investment in Qatar

and its settlement in the year 2006 the new factory in Jeddah did

not stand explained because, according to the family of respondent

No. 1, the adjusted remaining amount of 3.2 million US Dollars

was settled with Al-Thani family in the year 2006 through transfer

of ownership of the two offshore companies and the relevant

properties in London in favour of respondent No. 7. With that

claimed final settlement of the investment in Qatar no money was

left in that folder to be utilized for setting up a new factory in

Jeddah by the name of Hill Metals! One thing is, however, quite

clear that the money received by respondent No. 1 through the

earnings from that factory make respondent No. 1 a beneficiary of

that business. It could well be that the said factory in Saudi Arabia

belongs to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 7 runs that factory on

behalf of respondent No. 1 and through respondent No. 7 the

income generated by that business is periodically sent to

respondent No. 1 in the shape of gifts. There has been no

disclosure about that asset or business before this Court and, like

many other assets and businesses worth millions of US Dollars

mentioned above, the said asset or business also stands

unaccounted for. A son settled in Saudi Arabia and having two

wives and about half a dozen children sending gifts of crores of

Rupees in cash to his father on a regular basis and that too to a

father who is quite rich and very famous in his own right is a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 145
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

phenomenon which is difficult to comprehend and surely out of the

ordinary.

103. The record produced before the Court also discloses another

pattern showing that crores of Rupees in cash are sent from Saudi

Arabia by a son (respondent No. 7) to his father (respondent No. 1),

the father purchases landed property in the name of his daughter

(respondent No. 6), some money is gifted by the father to the

daughter and then the daughter pays the father the amount spent

by him on such purchases and becomes owner of such property in

her own right. According to the record an amount of Rs.

24,851,526 had been paid by the daughter (respondent No. 6) to

her father (respondent No. 1) out of the money gifted by the father

to the daughter by following the same pattern! The pattern may be

mindboggling to some but we are told that those versed well with

taxation laws know of such ways of rotating money and in the

process whitening money which may otherwise be black. In the

above mentioned report prepared by Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the

Federal Investigation Agency some specified persons had actually

been named and some evidence in that regard had been mentioned

establishing how through Havala/Hundi some unaccounted for

money available with respondent No. 1 was siphoned off abroad

and then the same money was brought back to the country as

white money through gifts.

104. At every stage of the hearing of these petitions the question

regarding onus of proof kept on recurring before the Court.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the initial onus

on the petitioners had been discharged by them through producing

sufficient material to show that the relevant four properties in

London were owned by respondent No. 1s family, the said

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 146
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

respondent and his family acknowledged ownership and

possession of those properties, the children of the said respondent

did not possess sufficient means of their own to acquire the said

properties at the relevant time and respondent No. 1 and his family

had failed to account for the funds utilized for acquisition of such

properties which factors had shifted the onus of proof to

respondent No. 1 and his family requiring them to account for the

relevant acquisitions to the satisfaction of the Court and to

establish that respondent No. 1 had been honest in his

explanations advanced in that regard before the nation, the

National Assembly and this Court. As against that the learned

counsel for respondents No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 had maintained that the

allegations leveled against the said respondents were essentially of

quasi criminal nature and, therefore, the onus was always upon

the petitioners to establish their allegations before the Court

through positive and admissible evidence and it was not for the

said respondents to disprove those allegations. I have attended to

this controversy with reference to the relevant statutory provisions

and a brief reference to such provisions is being made in the

following paragraphs.

105. The present case brought before this Court by invoking

Article 184(3) of the Constitution is not a case of a civil wrong or of

commission of a criminal offence but it is essentially a case of a

constitutional qualification for and disqualification from becoming

or remaining a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) mainly

on the ground of lack of honesty on the part of respondent No. 1.

Proceedings of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

are essentially civil in nature. The allegations leveled by the

petitioners are largely based upon some material disclosed by the

International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) which

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 147
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

material had been put to respondents No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 by ICIJ

before it was made public and the said respondents had failed to

rebut or even contest the same at that stage. The material so

disclosed did have a tendency to incriminate those respondents

and to raise serious questions qua their honesty and integrity. In

their private capacities the petitioners had no means to inquire

into or investigate the matter or to penetrate the multiple veils of

offshore companies. Like the ICIJ the petitioners have acted in the

matter as whistleblowers. Because of respondent No. 1 being the

Prime Minister of the country and the Chief Executive of the

Federation besides being the appointing authority of the heads of

all the relevant institutions tasked to inquire into, investigate or

prosecute such matters nobody even initiated any inquiry or

investigation against respondent No. 1 and his children in respect

of the allegations leveled. The initial onus of proof on the

petitioners stood discharged when the relevant respondents

admitted their possession and ownership of the relevant properties

in London. Thereafter it was for the said respondents to account

for those properties. Respondent No. 1 and his children had the

special knowledge of all the relevant facts and only they could

bring on the record material establishing their bona fide in the

matter. In view of the factors discussed in the preceding

paragraphs there was a lot of explaining to be done by respondent

No. 1 and his children and, therefore, the onus of proof had indeed

shifted to them. We have been guided in this respect by the

following statutory provisions relating to corruption and corrupt

practices and the jurisprudence developed on the subject in this

country:

Section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 148
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

5-C. Possession of property disproportionate to known

sources of income.-

(1) Any public servant who has in his possession any

property, movable or immovable either in his own name or in the
name of any other person, which there is reason to believe to have
been acquired by improper means and which is proved to be
disproportionate to the known sources of income of such public
servant shall, if he fails to account for such possession to the
satisfaction of the Court trying him, be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and
with fine, and on such conviction the property found to be
disproportionate to the known sources of income of the accused
by the Court shall be forfeited to the Provincial Government.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) to property acquired by

improper means shall be construed as a reference to property
acquired by means which are contrary to law or to any rule or
instrument having the force of law or by coercion, undue
influence, fraud or misrepresentation within the meaning of the
Contract Act, 1872.

Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999:

A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit

or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt
practices:-
---------------------
(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns,
possesses, or has acquired right or title in any assets or holds
irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets or pecuniary
resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which
he cannot reasonably account for or maintains a standard of
living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of
income ---

Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999:

In any trial of an offence punishable under clause (v) of sub-

section (a) of Section 9 of this Ordinance, the fact that the
accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in
possession for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily
account, of assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his
known sources of income, or that such person has, at or about
the time of the commission of the offence with which he is
charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or
property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court
shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused
person is guilty of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices
and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only
that it is based solely on such presumption.

(underlining has been supplied for emphasis)

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 149
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

It is a fact not disputed in this case by any party that respondent

No. 1 was, and he still is, a holder of a public office when he and

his children came in possession of the relevant properties in

London between the years 1993 and 1996 and they are still in

admitted possession of those assets which are claimed to be owned

by one of the children of respondent No. 1 since the year 2006. It is

again an uncontroverted fact that at the time of taking over

possession of the said properties all the children of respondent No.

1 were non-earning students and his wife was a household lady

with no independent sources of income of their own and, thus,

they were dependents of respondent No. 1 at that time. No other

claimant to those assets has surfaced anywhere ever since. The

issue of corruption and corrupt practices is essentially a criminal

law issue but when it arises in the electoral context of a

constitutional or statutory qualification or disqualification then

such issue becomes a quasi criminal issue. When dealing with a

quasi criminal issue it is impossible not to be guided in the matter

by the broader principles applicable to the criminal law relating to

corruption and corrupt practices which are inseparably linked with

the issue of honesty of a person. As seen above, one of the basic

features governing this field of the law is that where a public

servant or a holder of a public office is in possession of an asset

either directly or through his dependents or Benamidars then it is

for him to account for that asset which is disproportionate to his

known sources of income and a court dealing with the issue is to

presume the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

106. The law of evidence in vogue in the country is the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order, 1984 and the following provisions of that law are

quite relevant to the case in hand:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 150
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:

122. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person
the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Illustrations

(a) ---------------------

(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without a ticket. The

burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:

117. Burden of proof. (1) Whoever desires any Court to give

judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.

(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact,

it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:

129. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The

Court may presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course
of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Illustrations

The Court may presume:

(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after

the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing
them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession;

Article 2(4), (7) and (8) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:

Definition of proved:

(4) A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the

matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers
its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it exists.

---------------------
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 151
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(7) Whenever it is provided by this Order that this Court may

presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless
and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.

(8) Whenever it is directed by this Order that the Court shall

presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and
until it is disproved.

The facts about generation and availability of the requisite funds

for taking over or setting up the relevant offshore companies and

acquisition of the relevant properties in London, about transfer of

such funds to Panama or England, about the modes of payment,

about how, when and from whom possession of the relevant

properties was obtained and about who became the beneficial

owner of the said properties were all especially within the

knowledge of respondent No. 1 and his children and, thus, the

burden of proving those facts was upon them (Article 122).

Respondent No. 1 and his children have always maintained that

the relevant properties had been acquired through lawful money

generated and transferred through legitimate means and that the

matter ought to be decided by a court of law before which they

would establish their claim by producing all the relevant record

which was in their possession. The burden of proof in that respect,

therefore, lied on them (Article 117). Respondent No. 1 and his

children admit being in possession of the relevant properties which

are being alleged to have been acquired through corruption,

corrupt practices and money laundering, etc. and, thus, a court

may presume correctness of the allegations (Article 129) and it was

for respondent No. 1 and his children to establish otherwise

(Article 2(7) and (8)). Apart from that a finding by a court that a

fact exists and stands proved is not always dependent upon direct

or positive proof led by the parties in support of their rival claims

and in an appropriate case even the circumstances of a given case

may convince the court that a fact exists and stands proved, as is
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 152
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

evident from the provisions of Article 2(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat

Order, 1984 according to which A fact is said to be proved when,

after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it

to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man

ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon

the supposition that it exists. Instead of giving any straight

answer the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 maintained before

this Court that the said respondent had nothing to do with

acquisition of the relevant properties in London and the Court

should ask the said respondents children about those properties.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 6 maintained that even

that respondent had nothing to do with acquisition of the said

properties and the Court should ask her brothers about the same.

When the Court asked the learned counsel for respondents No. 7

and 8 about acquisition of the relevant properties he simply

maintained that such a question could satisfactorily be answered

only by the said respondents grandfather who had died in the year

2004! Upon receipt of such responses from the learned counsel for

respondents No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 the Court had repeatedly observed

that the strategy adopted by the said respondents to conceal the

relevant facts from the Court amounted to taking of a big gamble

because the onus to account for the relevant properties was on

respondent No. 1 whose children were admittedly in possession of

the said properties since their being dependents of respondent No.

1 and failure of respondent No. 1 to account for those properties

could activate a legal presumption against him. Alas, despite those

observations of the Court respondent No. 1 persisted with that

strategy and continued with the gamble till the end of hearing of

these petitions.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 153
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

107. Corruption at high places is not a new phenomenon but the

methods of corruption and concealing the proceeds of corruption

have seen a dramatic change in recent times. Previously a corrupt

official would make illegal money and then put the amount in his

bank account or a bank account of someone close to him or would

convert that amount into property. Such proceeds of corruption

and the property acquired through the same were not difficult to

detect and, therefore, the normal onus and standard of proof

required in a criminal case, i.e. the prosecution to prove its

allegations beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person

presumed to be innocent till proved guilty were applicable to the

cases of corruption as well. Things have, however, changed now.

There are now tax havens available in different parts of the world

and through creation of offshore companies not only tax is being

evaded by concealing wealth but even ill-gotten money is parked

behind multiple veils of secrecy which are extremely difficult to lift

or penetrate. This new development has forced legislatures around

the world to modify the laws about onus and standard of proof in

cases of corruption and even the courts and tribunals in different

parts of the world are adopting different approaches for concluding

as to whether the allegations of corruption leveled against an

accused person have been established or not. In Pakistan, as

already noticed above, section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1947 places a light initial onus of proof on the prosecution to

establish that the accused person is in possession of some movable

or immovable property and there is reason to believe that such

property had been acquired by improper means and the same is

disproportionate to his known sources of income and then a

heavier onus shifts to the accused person to account for

possession of the relevant properties to the satisfaction of the

court. Again, section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 154
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Ordinance, 1999 places a light initial onus of proof on the

prosecution to establish that a holder of a public office, or any

other person, or his dependent or Benamidar owns, possesses, or

has acquired right or title in any asset or holds irrevocable power

of attorney in respect of any asset or pecuniary resource

disproportionate to his known sources of income or maintains a

standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his

sources of income and thereafter a heavier onus shifts to the

accused person to reasonably account for his ownership,

possession, acquiring of right or title or holding irrevocable power

of attorney in respect of such assets or pecuniary resources.

Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 goes

a step further and provides that In any trial of an offence

punishable under clause (v) of sub-section (a) of Section 9 of this

Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person

on his behalf, is in possession for which the accused person

cannot satisfactorily account, of assets or pecuniary resources

disproportionate to his known sources of income, or that such

person has, at or about the time of the commission of the offence

with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary

resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account,

the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the

accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and corrupt

practices and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason

only that it is based solely on such presumption. This change of

approach in cases of corruption and corrupt practices is not just

confined to Pakistan but there is also some international arbitral

and common law authority available now showing that when it

comes to establishing corruption and corrupt practices in civil

proceedings the standard of proof required is the balance of

probabilities and understanding of a prudent man and not beyond

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 155
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

reasonable doubt and that such an issue can even be clinched on

the basis of circumstantial evidence. It has already been observed

by us above that proceedings of this Court under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution are essentially civil in nature. A survey of the

following cases would demonstrate that in civil proceedings at the

international level the standard of proof in relation to corruption

and corrupt practices is balance of probabilities (allowing

inferences from circumstantial evidence) and not beyond

reasonable doubt.

108. In the field of international commercial arbitration we note

that in the case of Agrima Ltd. v. Republic of Zambia (ICC Case No.

12732) [(2011) 22 ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin at

page 78] a distinguished ICC Tribunal was asked to address claims

that the contract in issue was part of a corrupt transaction and

had entailed illegal conduct under the applicable English law. The

Tribunal observed that it was of the view that:

the standard of proof need not be, and should not be, weakened,
nor that it need be or should be strengthened. The same standard
of proof, namely one based upon the balance of probability,
should be applied. That standard does not require certainty, or
even likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor does it require
conclusive, direct evidence. It requires evidence, to be sure, but
such evidence may be indirect or circumstantial, to the extent it is
sufficient, in the context of the surrounding circumstances, to tip
the balance of probability.

Similarly, in ICC Case No 8891 [(2000) 127 Journal du droit

international at pages 1076, 1079] another learned ICC Tribunal

concluded, by drawing on circumstantial evidence, described by

the Tribunal as indicia, that corruption had taken place. The

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 156
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Tribunal set out and applied the following test (translated from the

original French text):

According to the traditional rules concerning the standard of

proof, it is incumbent on the party that alleges a wrongful act to
prove it. This often turns out to be difficult in practice. The illicit
object is generally hidden behind contractual dispositions which
appear on their face to be anodyne. That is why arbitrators often
have no choice but to base themselves on indicia. Those indicia
must be serious.

In the case of Argentine Engineer v. British Company (ICC Case No

1110) [Award of 1963 (Lagergren) (1996) 47 Yearbook of

International Arbitration 47] the Sole Arbitrator Lagergren (a Judge

of the International Court of Justice) held on the basis of

circumstantial evidence and adverse inferences that the contracts

there at issue had been entered into through corruption.

109. In the field of international investment arbitration (Investor-

State Arbitration) the ICSID Tribunals (tribunals formed under the

auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of

Investment Disputes) have also been alive to the difficulties that

practically persist in trying to prove corruption and the

consequences that must perforce have for the applicable standard

of proof. In the case of Oostergetel v. The Slovak Republic

[UNCITRAL Final Award (23 April 2012)] the Tribunal held that

whilst

[f]or obvious reasons, it is generally difficult to bring positive

proof of corruption --------------------- corruption can also be
proven by circumstantial evidence.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 157
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

In the case of Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No.

ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013) the Tribunal observed that:

the Tribunal will determine on the basis of the evidence before it

whether corruption has been established with reasonable
certainty. In this context, it notes that corruption is by essence
difficult to establish and that it is thus generally admitted that it
can be shown through circumstantial evidence.

In the case of Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine (Case No. ARB/02/18,

Award, 26 July 2007) the Tribunal said that in relation to

government corruption-like activities the standard of proof was

whether the assertion is more likely than not to be true, that is,

balance of probabilities.

110. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the jurisprudence of

the International Court of Justice which in the case of Corfu

Channel (ICJ Rep 1949 at page 18) laid down the rule that, where

an allegation is particularly difficult to prove, the party which is

trying to prove the allegation at issue

should be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact

and circumstantial evidence. This indirect evidence is admitted in
all systems of law, and its use is recognized by international
decisions. It must be regarded as of special weight when it is
based on a series of facts linked together and leading logically to a
single conclusion.

111. Even in the English law it was incisively observed by the

Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in the case of Secretary

of State for the Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47,

[2002] 1 All ER 122 that:

The civil standard of proof always means more likely than not.
The only higher degree of probability required by the law is the
criminal standard. But, as Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead explained
in In re H (Sexual Abuse, Standard of Proof) (Minors) [1996] AC
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 158
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

563 at 586, some things are inherently more likely than others. It
would need more cogent evidence to satisfy one that the creature
seen walking in Regents Park was more likely than not to have
been a lioness than to be satisfied to the same standard of
probability that it was an Alsatian [dog]. --------------------- cogent
evidence is generally required to satisfy a civil tribunal that a
person has been fraudulent or behaved in some other
reprehensible manner. But the question is always whether the
tribunal thinks it more probable than not.

112. The present case before us is not a criminal case and nobody

has prayed that respondent No. 1 or his children may be convicted

by this Court of corruption, corrupt practices or money

laundering, etc. The petitioners have called upon this Court mainly

to examine as to whether in the matter of his explanations in

respect of acquisition of the relevant properties and assets

respondent No. 1 has been honest to the nation, the National

Assembly and this Court or not. A lot of circumstances have

become available on the record which circumstances have already

been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment. Article 2(4) of

the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 reproduced above speaks of

the matters before the court and not just the evidence produced

and it visualizes that there may be cases where a fact may be

found by the court to exist and proved on the basis of the

circumstances of the case even if no direct or positive evidence is

available before it. Setting up an offshore company and

concealment of ill-gotten wealth and assets behind its multiple

veils of secrecy which may be extremely difficult to lift or penetrate

pose new challenges to administration of justice worldwide and in

the absence of direct or positive evidence such cases of corruption,

corrupt practices and money laundering, etc. may be solved

through strong circumstantial evidence or material. The

circumstances of a given case may also convince a court or

tribunal that the explanations advanced by a person trying to

justify his wealth and assets held in the name of another are not
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 159
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

true or correct which factor may impinge upon his honesty,

particularly when he holds a high public office of authority. In the

present case we are only seized of the issue of respondent No. 1s

honesty in the constitutional context and not the allegations of

corruption, corrupt practices or money laundering, etc. leveled

against him and, therefore, the said aspect of the matter can

validly be determined by us on the basis of the circumstances of

the case as made permissible by the provisions of Article 2(4) of the

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 reproduced above. Legal sages

down the ages have maintained Jura novit curia (the court

determines for itself what the law is) or as Darling J. put it in Gray

v. Gee (1923) 39 TLR 429, 430: It used to be said that the

common law of England resided in the breasts of His Majesty's

Judges. It is by now settled that the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which has been invoked in

the present case, is inquisitorial and not adversarial. The common

law concept of justice, equity and good conscience now finds

translated into a jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article

187(1) of the Constitution according to which in a case or matter

pending before it this Court has the power to issue such directions,

orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice.

This unique and extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred by

the Constitution only upon this Court which sits at the apex of

judicial administration and not upon any other court in the

country because it could be visualized that there might be cases

wherein the rigours of the codified law or strict compliance of the

same may create a situation which might be unjust or oppressive

in the circumstances of the case. All the other courts in this

country are courts of law whereas this Court is not just a court of

law but also the court of ultimate justice. It is obvious that when it

comes to exercise of the said jurisdiction of this Court to do

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 160
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

complete justice a strict application of the black letter law may not

stand between this Court and the noble cause of justice if the

circumstances of the case so warrant.

113. On the basis of the discussion made in the earlier part of

this judgment the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1 in

respect of the four properties in London and even in respect of his

and his familys businesses and resources have been found by me

to be nothing but evasive and the statements made by him in that

regard have appeared to me to be contradictory to each other. The

explanations advanced by him have also been found by me to have

remained utterly unproved through any independent evidence or

material and, hence, the same were quite likely to be untrue. Even

the children of respondent No. 1 have not been able to bring

anything on the record to show that the explanations advanced by

respondent No. 1 were or could be true and correct. Respondent

No. 1 has categorically distanced himself from the four properties

in London by maintaining that he is not a Director, shareholder or

beneficial owner of the offshore companies which own those

properties. He has, however, taken up divergent and contradictory

stands at different stages in his bids to show how money belonging

to his family had been utilized for purchase of those properties.

In none of such stands he had ever mentioned any investment

made in real estate business in Qatar but his children had taken

up a totally different stand according to which the four properties

in London had been acquired through funds becoming available

from a settlement of a real estate business in Qatar. Except for

two elusive, vague and obscure statements of a gentleman from

Qatar, which statements are based upon nothing but hearsay, no

independent evidence or material has been produced by

respondent No. 1s children to show that there in fact was any

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 161
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

investment in real estate business in Qatar, there in fact was

anything due to the family of respondent No. 1 when that business

was finally settled and the funds generated through such

settlement had then in fact been utilized for acquisition of the

relevant properties in London. The story about any such

investment in real estate business in Qatar was not the original

story of respondent No. 1s children, it had been introduced in

midstream and at the end it was ditched by advancing another

story and both the documents produced in support of the new

story were far from being satisfactory or reliable. In different

interviews, which were never denied or controverted, different

members of respondent No. 1s family including his wife, sons and

daughter had talked about purchasing, mortgaging or hiring of

those properties on rent for which no evidence or material

whatsoever had been produced by them. It is now being claimed

that the said properties are owned by respondent No. 1s son

namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif since the year 2006 but nothing

has been produced before the Court in support of such a claim.

The only document being relied upon in that respect is a Trust

Deed showing Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif as the beneficial owner

and Mariam Safdar as the trustee of those properties since the

year 2006 which document is a private document not notarized by

any official. It is not denied before us that the trust so created is

not recorded in any official record relevant to the two offshore

companies owning the said properties or in the record of the

administrator of the said companies. No record of the two offshore

companies or of their administrator has been produced by

respondent No. 1 and his children before this Court showing any

legal connection between them and the two offshore companies

and their administrator or when such connection had been

established, if at all. We had repeated asked the learned counsel

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 162
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

for respondent No. 1 and his children to produce any record

establishing that Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif became the owner of

the said offshore companies in the year 2006, as claimed by him,

and that respondent No. 1 and his children had nothing to do with

their ownership before the year 2006 but no such record had been

produced by them despite having exclusive possession of the same,

as claimed. Respondent No. 1, his wife, their children and their

chief financial advisor had categorically maintained at different

stages that the entire relevant record was available with them and

the same would be produced before any court or forum inquiring

into the allegations but that commitment or claim was never

honoured. Through their Joint Further Statement filed before this

Court on January 23, 2017 (Civil Miscellaneous Application No.

432 of 2017) respondents No. 7 and 8 had placed on the record a

letter written to their learned counsel Mr. Salman Akram Raja by

one Mr. Lawrence Radley Solicitor on January 17, 2017

maintaining therein that he had acted as a Solicitor in purchases

of the relevant four properties in London between the years 1993

and 1996 and that according to his recollection his instructions

to purchase were not provided by any member of the Sharif family.

Nothing has been produced before this Court to confirm or

establish that Mr. Lawrence Radley was in fact a Solicitor, he had

indeed been associated with purchases of the said properties

between the years 1993 and 1996 or the letter referred to above is

a genuine document. The facts of the case show, and show quite

clearly, that very valuable properties had statedly been acquired by

respondent No. 1s children and many businesses had been set up

and run by them in different parts of the world since the time

when they had no independent sources of income and respondent

No. 1 and his children have miserably failed to even prima facie

account for the same. No definite source of income has been

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 163
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disclosed, no bank account has been identified, no receipt has

been produced, no money trail has been established and no

document relating to transfer of interest in any of the companies or

properties has been supplied by them and all their explanations in

respect of businesses and assets are elusive and evasive at best.

Apart from that the shifting stands taken, the divergent and

contradictory explanations advanced and the prevarication and

concealment resorted to by them at different stages of the matter

unmistakably point towards a guilty mind and conscience as

observed by this Court in the case of S. M. Hayat v. Federal Service

Tribunal and 3 others (1989 SCMR 218) in the following words:

It is apparent from the record of inquiry that in preliminary

inquiry the appellant has categorically admitted in his statement
that Mr. I. M. Tariq Supr B alongwith members of F. S. Team
visited his residence and he also confirmed in his cross-
examination that he recognizes Mr. Imam Tariq. The appellant
also admitted his travel in the car of the representative of the
Textile Mills from Cyanide Factory to the Mohajir Camp Chowk
alongwith Mr. Kaleem-uz-Zaman. But in his statement at a later
stage the appellant has totally denied the visit of Mr. I. M. Tariq
alongwith the members of F. S. Team, to his residence as well as
his travel in the Mills representatives car on 22.2.1982. These
contradictory statements on the part of the appellant show his
guilty conscience by his own conduct which clearly makes him
responsible for commission of the alleged offence beyond any
doubt.

In the case of Dr. Aftab Shah v. Pakistan Employees Cooperative

Society Limited and 5 others (2006 CLC 342) the High Court of

Sindh had observed as follows:

15. --------------------- When one stand is taken at one point of

time and a different stand at another, and both stands do not
reconcile with each other, then this act by itself leads to the
presumption that such person does not have a genuine cause of
action. The conflicting stands amount to destroying ones own
cause of action and, therefore, the entire foundation of plaintiffs
claim is to be treated as false.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 164
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

In another case of Asif Mowjee v. Zaheer Abbas and others (2015

CLC 877) the High Court of Sindh had observed as under:

52. The stand taken by learned counsel for the Applicant is

not only self-destructive but also self-clashing. Not only this the
applicant is also guilty of approbation and reprobation by taking
inconsistent pleas. Of course, which leads to the conclusion that
the applicant [defendant No. 1 judgment debtor] does not have
any genuine case.

I may, therefore, be justified in raising an adverse inference in the

matter. The fortune amassed by respondent No. 1 is indeed huge

and no plausible or satisfactory explanation has been advanced in

that regard. Honor de Balzac may after all be right when he had

said that behind every great fortune for which one is at a loss to

account there is a crime. In the above mentioned sorry and

unfortunate state of affairs a conclusion has appeared to me to be

unavoidable and inescapable that in the matter of explaining the

wealth and assets respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the

nation, to the nations representatives in the National Assembly

and even to this Court.

114. It has already been mentioned in the opening part of this

judgment that respondent No. 1 has held the highest public offices

since the year 1981 and such offices include those of the Finance

Minister, Chief Minister and Prime Minister and in one of his

interviews he had stated that he had decided to disassociate

himself from the family business in the year 1997 although no

material has been produced before us in support of such claim.

There is no denying the fact that at least between 1981 and 1997

the said respondent was actively engaged with his family business
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 165
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and was simultaneously enjoying the above mentioned highest

public offices. It is also an admitted fact that the relevant two

offshore companies own the four properties in London from the

years 1993/1996 which offshore companies are statedly owned by

respondent No. 1s son namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif at least

since the year 2006. The dependent and non-earning children of

respondent No. 1 are admittedly in possession of the said

properties in London since the years 1993/1996 and, thus, it is

respondent No. 1 who is deemed to be in possession of those

properties since the years 1993/1996. Nothing has been produced

before this Court either by respondent No. 1 or his son to show

that before the year 2006 the said offshore companies and the

relevant properties were owned by somebody else. It is, therefore,

more likely than not that the said companies and properties were

set up or taken over at a time when respondent No. 1 was holding

the above mentioned highest public offices in Pakistan. His

asserted business relations with Al-Thani family of Qatar and the

commonly known blessings received by his businesses from the

royal families of the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia may also point towards his public offices in Pakistan

having inseparable connections with his businesses in other parts

of the world. In that backdrop a serious issue arises as to whether

respondent No. 1 has been an ameen while in charge of the

resources of the motherland or not. Plato is universally

acknowledged as one of the greatest philosophers of all times and

in his book Republic he had concluded many thousand years ago

that for the position of the king he would prefer a philosopher over

a merchant because a philosopher is a visionary thinking about

the future whereas a merchant may find it impossible not to keep

his mundane business and property interests in mind even when

administering the republic. Plato was indeed a wise man.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 166
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

115. The main relief prayed for by the petitioners through the

present petitions is regarding a declaration that respondent No. 1

is not honest and ameen and consequently he is not qualified to

be elected to or remain a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) and for seeking such relief a wholehearted reliance is

placed upon the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

which are reproduced below:

62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or

chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-
(a) ---------------------
(b) ---------------------
(c) ---------------------
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one
who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and
practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains
from major sins;
(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and
ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of
law; and
---------------------.

It appears that while prescribing the said qualifications guidance

must have been sought from the Holy Quran wherein the

qualifications for a domestic servant indicated are alqavi ul

ameen (physically strong and reliable/trustworthy) [Surah Al-

Qasas: verse No. 26] and those for being placed over resources of

the land are hafeez un aleem (reliable custodian/protector and

knowledgeable) [Surah Yusuf: verse No. 55]. It is probably in those

contexts that the qualifications of being honest and ameen

prescribed in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution are to be

understood, interpreted and applied. The reasons why such

stringent qualifications for the elected representatives found their

way into the Constitution and the difficulties likely to be faced by a

court or tribunal in interpreting and applying such abstract

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 167
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

qualifications to real cases were commented upon by me in my

separate concurring judgment delivered in the case of Ishaq Khan

Khakwani and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others

(PLD 2015 SC 275). In the said judgment a number of ambiguities

and impracticalities were highlighted and observations were made

how it was difficult for a court or tribunal to apply the above

mentioned requirements of Article 62 of the Constitution. The

relevant part of that judgment reads as follows:

Similarly clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution

provides a feast of legal obscurities. It lays down that a person
shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless:

"(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-

profligate and honest and ameen[, there
being no declaration to the contrary by a
court of law]."

Whether a person is sagacious or not depends upon a

comprehensive study of his mind which is not possible within the
limited scope of election authorities or courts involved in election
disputes. The acumen or sagacity of a man cannot be fathomed.
The same is true of being 'righteous' and 'non-profligate'. These
factors relate to a man's state of mind and cannot be properly
encompassed without a detailed and in-depth study of his entire
life. It is proverbial that Devil himself knoweth not the intention of
man. So, why to have such requirements in the law, nay, the
Constitution, which cannot even be defined, not to talk of proof.
The other requirement qua being 'honest and 'ameen' have a clear
reference towards the Holy Prophet's (p.b.u.h.) attributes as
Sadiq' and 'Ameen'. This as well as other requirements envisaged
by the preceding clauses of Article 62, if applied strictly, are
probably incorporated in the Constitution to ensure that only the
pure and pious Muslims (living upto the standard of a prophet of
God Almighty) should be elected to our Assemblies so that, as
provided in the Preamble, the sovereignty of God Almighty could
be exercised by them in the State of Pakistan as a sacred trust.
But, instead of being idealistic, the Constitution of a country
should be more practicable. The line of prophethood has long
been discontinued and now we are left with sinful mortals. The
political arena in our country is full of heavyweights whose social
and political credentials outweigh their moral or religious
credentials. Even the electorate in our country has also
repeatedly demonstrated their preference for practical wisdom
and utility over religious puritanism. Thus, the inclusion of
unrealistic and ill-defined requirements in the Basic Law of the
Land renders the same impracticable and detracts from the
sanctity which the Constitution otherwise deserves.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 168
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

That judgment had concluded with the following remarks made by

me which may be of some relevance and interest in the present

context:

4. It is unfortunate that the nightmares of interpretation and

application apprehended and anticipated by me as a young lawyer
more than a quarter of a century ago are presently gnawing the
Returning Officers, Election Tribunals and the superior courts of
the country in the face but those responsible for rationalizing the
troublesome provisions of the Constitution through appropriate
amendments of the Constitution have slept over the matter for so
long and they still demonstrate no sign of waking up. As long as
the highlighted obscurities and impracticalities are not addressed
and remedied nobody should complain that the Returning
Officers, Election Tribunals and the superior courts of the
country are generally unsuccessful in catching the candidates
with bad character or antecedents in the net of Articles 62 and 63
of the Constitution, particularly when the electorate is quite
happy to elect such candidates with sweeping majorities while in
full knowledge of their character and antecedents. Let us not shy
away from acknowledging the hard reality that there is a
disconnect between our constitutional morality and our political
ethos. There are no qualms of conscience when through a
constitutional and legal process a person is ousted from an
elected chamber on account of his academic degree being fake
and forged but he is returned by the electorate to the same
chamber with a bigger majority and he triumphantly re-enters
that chamber while flashing a sign of victory. The sign so shown
or flaunted proclaims victory of political expediency over
constitutional values and such attitudes of our society call for
serious reflection and soul-searching.

5. This reminds me of George Bernard Shaw who had

observed that "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be
governed no better than we deserve." Abraham Lincoln had once
remarked: Let me not be understood as saying that there are no
bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of
which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such
thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist,
should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue
in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously
observed. If the constitutional provisions discussed above cannot
be put to practical use due to their obscurities or impracticalities
then we may pay heed to Baron de Montesquieu who had
declared that Useless laws weaken necessary laws. It may be
well to remember that laws and institutions, like clocks, must
occasionally be cleaned, wound up and set to true time. Even the
old bard William Shakespeare had written in Measure for
Measure:

We must not make a scarecrow of the law,

Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 169
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Their perch and not their terror.

In the end I may observe that insistence upon complete virtue in

an ordinary mortal may be unrealistic and puritanical behaviour
of an ordinary human may have a tendency of making him
inhuman. It may be true that humans are the best of Almighty
Allahs creations but the divine structural design never intended
an ordinary human being to be perfect and free from all failings,
frailties or impurities. There may, thus, be some food for thought
in what Abraham Lincoln had said about ordinary folks when he
had observed that "It has been my experience that folks who have
no vices have very few virtues."

116. It may be true that the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) and the

likes of them had been inserted in the Constitution through an

amendment by an unrepresentative regime of a military ruler but

at the same time it is equally true that all the subsequent

democratic regimes and popularly elected Parliaments did nothing

either to delete such obscure provisions from the Constitution or to

define them properly so that any court or tribunal required to

apply them may be provided some guidance as to how to interpret

and apply them. Be that as it may the fact remains that the said

provisions are still very much a part of the Constitution and when

they are invoked in a given case the courts and tribunals seized of

the matter have no other option but to make some practical sense

of them and to apply them as best as can be done. Before

application of those provisions to real cases it is imperative to

understand as to why such provisions were made a part of the

Constitution and where do they stand in the larger design of the

Constitution.

117. There is no denying the fact that it was in the name of Islam

that Pakistan emerged on the map of the world and the grund

norm of the new State and its society, which came to be known as

the Ideology of Pakistan, was nothing but Muslim faith. Before

embarking upon the task of framing of our first Constitution this

ideology was translated into words in precise form by the first

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 170
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in a resolution passed by it in

the year 1949. That resolution, known as the Objectives

Resolution, inter alia, provided as follows:

Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to

Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to
the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised
within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;

Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority

through the chosen representatives of the people;

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality,

tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully
observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives

in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the
teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran
and the Sunnah;

In the successive Constitutions that were adopted by the people of

Pakistan from time to time the principles and provisions of that

Objectives Resolution were added as a Preamble thereto till the

year 1985 when, through insertion of Article 2A in the Constitution

of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it was categorically

provided that The principles and provisions set out in the

Objectives Resolution reproduced in the Annex are hereby made

substantive part of the Constitution and shall have effect

accordingly. There are certain remarkable Islamic features of the

Objectives Resolution, now a substantive part of our Constitution,

which are hard to escape notice. For instance a new dimension has

been given therein to the concept of sovereignty of the Parliament.

Although sovereignty of Almighty Allah over the entire universe has

been acknowledged yet the State has been recognized as the

delegatee thereof which is to exercise that sovereignty through

chosen representatives of the people within the limits prescribed

by Almighty Allah as a sacred trust. Thus, while conceding

sovereignty to a democratically elected Parliament the Constitution

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 171
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

simultaneously circumscribes that sovereignty by confining it to

the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. This is in exact conformity

with a Muslims belief that he may be free to make his own choices

in life but he may not overstep the limits prescribed by his Creator.

Looked at in this perspective the Pakistani Constitution,

conforming to the Islamic perceptions, recognizes democracy as the

only mode of governance, but a democracy which does not come in

conflict with a Muslims faith. To an outsider this may appear to be

enigmatic but we the Muslims of Pakistan have no difficulty in

understanding and applying this concept. It, therefore, fits into the

scheme when the Objectives Resolution refers to the principles of

democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as

enunciated by Islam and envisions a State wherein the Muslims

shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective

spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam

as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. The scheme,

unmistakably, is the establishment of a modern and democratic

Islamic State in fulfillment of the wishes of the Muslims of this

region and the manifestations of this scheme are to be found

spread over the entire Constitution of Pakistan. Article 1(1) of the

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides

that Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Pakistan. It

may be pertinent to point out that Pakistan has been the first

country in modern history to introduce the concept of an Islamic

Republic which was later on also adopted by some other Muslim

countries. Not only the name of the country itself but also the

political system of its governance incorporated therein shows the

wishes of its people to blend modernity with their faith. Article 2 of

the Constitution, providing that Islam shall be the State religion of

Pakistan, again highlights the same theme and accomplishes the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 172
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

very object of creation of Pakistan. Under Article 41(2) of the

Constitution the President, who is to be the Head of State of this

Islamic Republic, has to be a Muslim. Under Article 50 of the

Constitution the Parliament of the State is to be called the Majlis-

e-Shoora after the Islamic traditions. It is in this context that the

qualifications prescribed for membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly and also for holding some

other high offices of the State have a distinct Islamic overtone and

the following provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution bear an

ample testimony to that:

(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one

who violates Islamic Injunctions;

(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and

practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as
abstains from major sins;

(f) he is sagacious, righteous an non-profligate and honest

and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by
a court of law;

(g) he has not been convicted for a crime involving moral

turpitude or for giving false evidence;

(h) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked

against the integrity of the country or opposed the
Ideology of Pakistan:

Provided that the disqualifications specified in paragraphs

(d) and (e) shall not apply to a person who is a non-
Muslim, but such a person shall have good moral
reputation;

These qualifications for the Federal and Provincial legislators and

high officers of the State may be quite onerous and hard to meet

but, at the same time, understandable if it is kept in mind that

such chosen representatives of the people and officers, while

exercising the powers and authority of the State, are to exercise the

sovereignty of Almighty Allah as His delegatees by way of a sacred

trust. In the context of the issue of corruption by elected

representatives in the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or Provincial

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 173
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Assemblies it may be observed that a faithful adherence to the

provisions of Article 62 of the Constitution provides a recipe for

cleansing the fountainhead of authority of the State so that the

trickled down authority may also become unpolluted. If this is

achieved then the legislative and executive limbs of the State are

purified at the top and such purity at the top necessarily trickles

down to the bottom as well. This recipe ensures clean leadership at

the top which may legislate for and administer this "land of the

pure" (Pakistan) as true delegatees of the sovereignty and authority

of Almighty Allah. That appears to be the constitutional design and

as long as the above mentioned provisions are a part of the

Constitution the courts of the country are under a sworn

commitment to enforce them.

118. The courts and tribunals in the country seized of issues

regarding interpretation and application of the provisions of Article

62 of the Constitution have generally been quite circumspect and

careful but over time jurisprudence on such issues has evolved

and the potential and purpose of the said provisions is being

grasped and achieved with a realization that notwithstanding many

obscurities and impracticalities ingrained in such provisions the

same have to be interpreted, applied and enforced as a command

and mandate of the Constitution. In some cases persons were held

not to be qualified for being candidates or disqualified from being

or remaining as members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or

Provincial Assemblies where they had claimed to possess

educational qualifications which were fake and bogus, where they

had practised cheating and fraud in obtaining the requisite

educational qualifications or where they had submitted false

declarations and had suppressed the information regarding their

holding dual nationalities and a reference in this respect may be

made to the cases of Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Fida Hussain Dero

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 174
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and others (PLD 2004 SC 452), Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan

Bar v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad and others (PLD

2010 SC 817), Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others

(PLD 2010 SC 828), Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal

and another (PLD 2010 SC 1066), Haji Nasir Mehmood v. Mian

Imran Masood and others (PLD 2010 SC 1089), Mudassar Qayyum

Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz (2011 SCMR 80), Syed Mehmood Akhtar

Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 1101),

Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam and others (PLD 2013

SC 179), Mian Najeeb-ud-Din Owasi and another v. Amir Yar Waran

and others (PLD 2013 SC 482), Sadiq Ali Memon v. Returning

Officer and others (2013 SCMR 1246), Abdul Ghafoor Lehri v.

Returning Officer and others (2013 SCMR 1271), Muhammad Khan

Junejo v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law, Justice

and Parliamentary Affairs and others (2013 SCMR 1328), General

(R.) Pervez Musharraf v. Election Commission of Pakistan and

another (2013 CLC 1461), Allah Dino Khan Bhayo v. Election

Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (2013 SCMR 1655),

Malik Umar Aslam v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2014 SCMR

45), Gohar Nawaz Sindhu v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD

2014 Lahore 670), Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz

Ahmad Tarar and others (2016 SCMR 1), Muhammad Siddique

Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC 97) and

Rai Hassan Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub & others (PLD 2017 SC

70).

119. In all the above mentioned cases the relevant courts and

tribunals were cognizant of the constitutional scheme peculiar to

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan wherein the delegated sovereignty

of Almighty Allah is to be exercised by the chosen representatives

of the people as a sacred trust and, hence, the need to ensure that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 175
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

only those who are honest and ameen enter into or remain in the

highest elected chambers. In the case of Nawabzada Iftikhar

Ahmad Khan Bar v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad and

others (PLD 2010 SC 817) this Court had observed as follows:

14. The Parliament of any country is one of its noblest,

honourable and important institutions making not only the
policies and the laws for the nation but in fact shaping and
carving its very destiny. And here is a man who being
constitutionally and legally debarred from being its member,
managed to sneak into it by making a false statement on oath and
by using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting the piety of
this pious body. His said conduct demonstrates not only his
callous contempt for the basic norms of honesty, integrity and
even for his own oath but also undermines the sanctity, the
dignity and the majesty of the said august House. He is guilty,
inter alia, of impersonation --- posing to be what he was not i.e. a
graduate. He is also guilty of having been a party to the making of
false documents and then dishonestly using them for his benefit
knowing them to be false. He is further guilty of cheating ---
cheating not only his own constituents but the nation at large.

Similarly in the case of Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and

others (PLD 2010 SC 828) this Court had observed as under:

13. And it was to preserve the pureness, the piety and the
virtuousness of such-like eminent and exalted institutions that,
inter-alia, Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and section 99 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had declared that,
amongst others, the persons who were not of good character; who
indulged in commission of major sins; who were not honest; who
were removed, dismissed or compulsorily retired from service of
Pakistan; who had obtained loans from banks and had not re-
paid the same or who had indulged in corrupt practices during
the course of elections, would not be allowed to pollute the
clearness of these legislative institutions.

In the case of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmad

Tarar and others (2016 SCMR 1) it was held by this Court that on

account of his submitting a false declaration about his educational

qualification

the appellant failed the requirements of rectitude and integrity

prescribed in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 176
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

The case of Muhammad Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen

and others (PLD 2016 SC 97) was no different and this Court had

observed therein as follows:

26. The loss of qualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution has been visited with removal from elected office
under the Constitution in a number of cases including
---------------------. Weighty reasons have been assigned for
adopting and implementing the constitutional mandate as a bar
on membership in Parliament. Firstly, the qualifications of a
candidate set out in Article 62 of the Constitution are a sine qua
non for eligibility to be elected as a Member of Parliament. No
time limit for eligibility on this score is given in the Constitution.
A person who is untruthful or dishonest or profligate has no place
in discharging the noble task of law making and administering
the affairs of State in government office. Such faults in character
or disposition, if duly established, cannot be treated as transient
for the purpose of reposing trust and faith of the electorate and
the Constitution in the holder of an elected office under the
Constitution. The trusteeship attendant upon the discharge of
every public office under the Constitution, whether Legislative,
Executive or Judicial is a universally recognized norm. However,
our Constitution emphasizes upon it expressly for an elected
parliamentary office. The Constitutional norm must be respected
and therefore implemented.

The latest reported case on the subject is that of Rai Hassan

Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub & others (PLD 2017 SC 70)

wherein this Court had held as under:

7. An honest and truthful declaration of assets and liabilities

by a returned candidate in his nomination papers furnishes a
benchmark for reviewing his integrity and probity in the discharge
of his duties and functions as an elected legislator.
---------------------
8. --------------------- Where assets, liabilities, earnings and
income of an elected or contesting candidate are camouflaged or
concealed by resort to different legal devices including benami,
trustee, nominee, etc. arrangements for constituting holders of
title, it would be appropriate for a learned Election Tribunal to
probe whether the beneficial interest in such assets or income
resides in the elected or contesting candidate in order to ascertain
if his false or incorrect statement of declaration under Section
12(2) of the ROPA is intentional or otherwise. --------------------- It
is to ensure integrity and probity of contesting candidates and
therefore all legislators. ---------------------

15. The object of Section 76A ibid is clearly to promote public

interest by ensuring that elected public representatives have
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 177
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

untainted financial credentials of integrity, probity and good faith.

---------------------
16. Indeed, honesty, integrity, probity and bona fide dealings
of a returned candidate are matters of public interest because
these standards of rectitude and propriety are made the
touchstone in the constitutional qualifications of legislators laid
down in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan.

120. There may possibly be yet another reason why the

qualifications regarding being honest and ameen and the likes of

them had to be incorporated in Article 62 of the Constitution of our

country through an amendment of the Constitution. In the parts of

the world where democracy is entrenched for a long time the

requirements of honesty, integrity, rectitude and probity in those

who aspire for or hold representative public offices or other

positions of high public authority are well understood and insisted

upon. In such parts of the world public morality is treated

differently from private morality and a person in high public office

found or caught indulging in an immoral behaviour or undesirable

conduct is seldom spared and that is why in order to avoid the

ensuing shame and dishonour he/she, more often than not,

resigns or withdraws from the scene on his/her own. Unfortunately

that kind of character is generally not demonstrated in our part of

the world as yet and that is why qualifications like honest and

ameen and the likes of them had been codified and incorporated

in our Constitution and the relevant election laws so as to provide

a constitutional and legal basis and mechanism for getting rid of

such elements. Lack of honesty, suppression of truth and conduct

unbecoming of a gentleman have often been considered in the

civilized world as valid grounds for high public officers or

personalities to quit the office or scene voluntarily and some of

such instances are mentioned below:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 178
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

In Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson

resigned on April 05, 2016 when the Panama Papers, published
in newspapers around the world, showed that the 41-year-old
premier and his wife had investments placed in the British Virgin
Islands, which included debt in Icelands three failed banks. The
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) had
uncovered that he and his wife had an offshore account to
manage an inheritance.

In Spain the acting Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria resigned

after his alleged links to offshore dealings emerged through the
Panama Papers. After initially denying having links to tax havens
he resigned on April 15, 2016.

In the United States of America President Richard M. Nixon had

resigned from his office after it was established that he had
misled the nation and the concerned authorities in the matter of
involvement of his administration in the Watergate scandal and
its subsequent cover-up. President Bill Clinton narrowly survived
impeachment on the ground of lying in the matter of his sexual
relationship with an intern in his office. Representative (R-GA)
and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994 resigned from
the House of Representatives after admitting in 1998 to having
had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second
wife. In the night of July 18, 1969, shortly after leaving a party on
Chappaquiddick Island, Senator Edward Ted Kennedy of
Massachusetts drove an Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge into a
tide-swept pond. Kennedy escaped the submerged car but his
passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. The senator
did not report the fatal car accident for 10 hours. The incident on
Chappaquiddick Island helped to derail his presidential hopes
and he pulled out of the race. Strom Thurmond, Senator (R-SC), a
noted segregationist, fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-
Williams, with a 15-year-old African American in the year 1925
who was employed by the Thurmond family. The embarrassment
caused by the scandal forced him to resign. Anthony Weiner (D-
NY), a newly married U.S. Representative, admitted to sending
sexually suggestive photographs of himself to several women
through his Twitter account. He resigned from the Congress in
June 2011. Elliot Spitzer, a Democratic governor of New York, had
patronized an elite escort service run by Emperors Club VIP. The
New York Times broke the story in March 2008 and the ensuing
scandal led to Spitzer's resignation as Governor within the next
few days. John Edwards, Senator (D-NC) admitted to an
extramarital affair with actor and film producer Rielle Hunter,
which produced a child, seriously undercutting his 2008
presidential campaign. Bob Livingston, Representative (R-LA)
called for resignation of Bill Clinton and when his own
extramarital affairs were leaked his wife urged him to resign and
urged Clinton to do likewise. Livingston announced that he would
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 179
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

vacate his House seat in May 1999 and withdrew his candidacy
for the office of Speaker.

In the United Kingdom Andrew Mitchell, Conservative

governments Chief Whip resigned after admitting swearing at the
police at the gates of Downing Street, London. Chris Huhne,
Energy Secretary, resigned in February 2012 and pleaded guilty
to the charge of perverting the course of justice. He was clocked
speeding on the road but to avoid a driving ban he falsely said
that it was his wife who was driving. In the Members of
Parliament expenses scandal many claimed that expenses were
legal and within the rule but in the words of David Cameron they
were not always up to highest ethical standards. Michael
Martin, Speaker at the time, made efforts to cover up the scandal
resulting in him being forced to resign in January 2009. He was
the first Speaker in the last 300 years to be forced to resign. Ron
Davies, Secretary of State for Wales, resigned in October 1998
after being robbed by a man he met at Clapham Common and
then lying about it. Clapham Common is a known gay meeting
place in London. Scotland's First Minister Henry McLeish
resigned in November 2001 when he was found to have sub-let a
part of his constituency office in Glenrothes, in Fife, and had
failed to register the income he received with the House of
Commons authorities. David McLetchie CBE, Member of the
Scottish Parliament and leader of the Scottish Conservative and
Unionist Party, was forced to resign in the year 2005 after
claiming the highest taxi expenses of any Member of the Scottish
Parliament. Northern Ireland Minister Michael Mates resigned in
the year 1993 over his links with fugitive tycoon Asil Nadir. Peter
Mandelson, a Cabinet Minister, bought a home in Notting Hill in
the year 1996 partly with an interest-free loan of 373,000 from
Geoffrey Robinson, a cabinet colleague and millionaire whose
business dealings were subject to an inquiry by Mandelson's
department. Mandelson contended that he had deliberately not
taken part in any decisions relating to Robinson. However, he had
not declared the loan in the Register of Members' Interests and he
resigned in December 1998. In January 2001 Mandelson resigned
from the Government for a second time following accusations of
using his position to influence a passport application. He had
contacted Home Office Minister Mike O'Brien on behalf of
Srichand Hinduja, an Indian businessman who was seeking
British citizenship, and whose family firm was to become the
main sponsor of the "Faith Zone" in the Millennium Dome. Jeffrey
Howard Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mares perjury
trial began on 30 May 2001, a month after one Monica Coghlan's
death in a road traffic accident. One Ted Francis claimed that
Archer had asked him to provide a false alibi for the night Archer
was alleged to have been with Monica Coghlan. Angela Peppiatt,
Archer's former personal assistant, also claimed Archer had
fabricated an alibi in the 1987 trial. Archer resigned.

In Japan in June 2010 Yukio Hatoyama announced his

resignation as the Prime Minister before a meeting of the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 180
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Japanese Democratic Party. He cited breaking a campaign

promise to close an American military base on the island of
Okinawa as the main reason for the move. Toshikatsu Matsuoka,
the agriculture minister, committed suicide in May 2003 after
being accused of misusing political funds. Akira Amari, Economy
Minister, resigned in the year 2016 after admitting receipt of
money from a construction company executive which he claimed
to have received as political donation. Trade Minister Obuchi and
Justice Minister Matsushima resigned in October 2014 when
Obuchi was accused of funneling campaign money to her sister
and brother-in-law and to improperly subsidizing entertainment
junkets for supporters whereas Matsushima stepped down for
improperly distributing more than $100,000 worth of paper fans
to constituents.

Premier Barry O'Farrell, Minister for Western Sydney, Australia

resigned in April 2014 after a corruption inquiry obtained a
handwritten note that contradicted his claims that he had not
received a $3000 bottle of wine from the head of a company linked
to the Obeid family. The Independent Commission Against
Corruption heard that Mr. O'Farrell was sent the Penfolds Grange
Hermitage by Nick Di Girolamo as a congratulatory gift following
his March 2011 election victory.

In the Czech Republic Prime Minister Peter Necas resigned in

June 2013 after prosecutors charged his chief of staff with
corruption and abuse of power. The Prime Minister's chief of staff,
Jana Nagyova, was suspected of bribing the former MPs with
offers of posts in state-owned firms. It is alleged that this was in
exchange for them giving up their parliamentary seats. Ms.
Nagyova - a close colleague of Mr. Necas for nearly a decade - was
also suspected of illegally ordering military intelligence to spy on
three people.

Although President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan wanted to see a

strong and independent Taiwan his familys (and his own) lack of
self control managed to undermine many of his positions. His
son-in-law was caught money laundering and insider trading, his
wife wired over $21 million to various banks in the world, and he
was arrested after his resignation for embezzlement of funds and
receiving bribes.

When persons in high public offices brazenly and unabashedly

cling on to offices or power despite having been involved or

implicated in serious scandals of corruption or immoral conduct

impairing their high moral authority then the only way to oust or

drive them out is to provide for a legal mechanism for their ouster
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 181
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and this is probably why in our country suitable provisions had

been introduced in Article 62 of the Constitution and the relevant

election laws through appropriate amendments. For a court or

tribunal to get involved in such matters may not be the most

desirable thing to do but as long as the Constitution and the law

command or warrant such intervention there may not be any

occasion for them to shy away from performance of such duty.

121. In the above mentioned case of Ishaq Khan Khakwani and

others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2015 SC

275) I had described the words honest and ameen appearing in

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution as obscure and impracticable

and had also talked about the nightmares of interpretation and

application that they involved. However, as the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) has so far not found any time to consider the said

issue, therefore, the courts in the country are under an obligation

not only to make some practical sense of those words by suitably

interpreting them as clearly as is possible and practicable but also

to apply them to real cases without losing their spirit and utility.

An appropriate and safe approach towards interpretation of words

used in the realm of morality which are not defined is to adopt a

limiting and restrictive approach and this is what had been done

by a Full Bench of the High Court of Balochistan in the case of

Molvi Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Returning Officer PB-15,

Musa Khail and others (2013 CLC 1583). Writing for the Full Bench

in that case Qazi Faez Isa, CJ (now an Honourable Judge of this

Court) had observed as follows:

12. Section 12(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act,

1976 ("the Act") stipulates that every nomination form shall be
accompanied by a declaration made on a solemn affirmation by
the person seeking to contest elections, that, he/she, "fulfils the
qualification specified in Article 62 and is not subject to any of
the disqualifications specified in Article 63 or any other law".
Section 99(1)(d) of the Act requires a candidate to be of "good
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 182
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

character" and one who does not violate Islamic Injunctions.

Section 99(1)(e) requires a candidate to abstain "from major sins".
Section 99(1)(f) requires him to be "sagacious, righteous, non-
profligate, honest and ameen". Section 99(1)(d) of the Act is
identical to Article 62(1)(d) of the Constitution, and section 99(1)
(e) of the Act is identical to Article 62(1)(e) of the Constitution,
whereas section 99(1)(f) of the Act is similar to Article 62(1)(f) of
the Constitution. Article 62 of the Constitution commences by
stating that, "a person shall not be qualified to be elected or
chosen" as a Member of Parliament unless he complies with the
provisions of Article 62. The framers of the Constitution wanted
parliamentarians to possess high moral integrity and prescribed
certain pre-conditions for them.

13. A person, who is of good character, does not violate

Islamic Injunctions, abstains from major sins, is sagacious,
righteous, non-profligate, and honest and ameen may be too high
a qualification-bar to surmount. Moreover, sincere and practising
Muslims in their humility, as slaves of God, may be reluctant to
proclaim their sagacity, righteousness and honesty ever fearful
that they fall short; whilst on the other hand lesser beings boldly
swearing theirs. We are also cognizant of the fact that the
language of Articles 62(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Constitution (which
is identical/similar to the language of sections 99(1)(d), (e) and (f)
of the Act) is very wide and generalized, and may therefore be
abused.

14. However, the present case is not one involving any

subjective assessment of the stipulated criteria in Article 62 of
the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that
the petitioner was not qualified to contest the 2008 General
Elections, but he did so, was elected, and became a Member of
the Balochistan Assembly and a Minister in the Cabinet. The
petitioner gained an advantage which he was not otherwise
entitled to. And as a Member of the Assembly and a Cabinet
Minister the petitioner diverted to his personal use funds from the
public exchequer. The petitioner used moneys from the Provincial
Consolidated Fund and such private use of public money was
categorized as a 'development scheme'. Needless to state money
for the schooling of ones own children and family members
cannot be dressed up as a 'development scheme' and pocketed.

15. In view of the above mentioned conduct of the petitioner

he cannot be stated to be of good character or one who does not
violate Islamic Injunctions or who is righteous or honest or
ameen. Articles 62(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Constitution and
sections 99(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act forbid such a person to be
elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament. The petitioner
however audaciously stated on oath that he "fulfils the
qualifications specified in Article 62 and is not subject to any of
the disqualifications specified in Article 63 or any other law".
Simply put, the petitioner lied.

16. Lies fall into two different categories, those uttered to

deceive and to gain an advantage, in the present case to be able to
contest elections, and innocent lies without malice or any
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 183
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

intended deception and where no benefit or gain accrues.

Almighty Allah states in the Holy Qur'an "... break not the oaths
after you have confirmed them" (Surah 16, An-Nahl, Verse 91).
"And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun
after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of
deception among yourselves..." (Surah 16, An-Nahl, Verse 92).
"And make not your oaths, a means of deception among
yourselves, lest a foot may slip after being firmly planted, and
you may have to taste the evil of having hindered from the Path of
Allah and yours will be a great torment" (Surah 16, An-Nahl,
Verse 94). "... Whosoever breaks his pledge, breaks only to his
own harm, and whosoever fulfils what he has covenanted with
Allah, He will bestow on him a great reward" (Surah 48, Al-Fath,
Verse 10). "Allah will not punish you for what is unintentional in
your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths" [if
false] (Surah 5, Al-Mai'dah, Verse 89). Whilst liars are castigated
the doors of Heaven open to the truthful. "And those who keep
their trusts and covenants... shall dwell in Paradise" (Surah 70,
Al-Ma'arij, Verses 32-35). "Those who are faithfully true to their
trusts and to their covenants ... who shall inherit Paradise"
(Surah 23, Al-Mu'minun, Verses 8-11). "Allah said: 'This is a Day
on which the truthful will profit from their truth" (Surah 5, Al-
Maidah, Verse 119). "0 you who believe! Be afraid of Allah, and be
with those who are true" (Surah 9, At-Taubah, Verse 119).

17. The cited provisions from the Constitution and the Act
may however be misused for ulterior motives. For instance, a
Muslim may not be saying his/her prayers or fasting and it be
alleged that he/she is not qualified to contest elections. The
Creator in His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy has created the
distinction between those matters which do not adversely affect
others and those that do; two separate obligations or huqooq,
those that a person owes to others and those which God demands
of man, respectively Huqooq-ul-lbad and Huqooq-ul-Allah. In the
Huqooq-ul-lbad category are obligations owed to fellow men and
women, such as not gaining an advantage on the basis of fraud.
The Huqooq-ul-Allah category includes rituals, such as fasting,
praying and performing Hajj. The non-observance of a ritual of
the Faith is a matter between the created (abd or slave) and the
Creator (Allah Taa'la or Almighty God). Almighty Allah tells us
through the Holy Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in religion"
(Surah 2, Al-Bakrah, Verse 256). The Messengers of Almighty
Allah were given the task to simply convey the Message (Surah 3,
Al-Imran, Verse 20 and Surah 5, Al-Mai'dah, Verse 99). Whilst the
people may or may not abide by the prescriptions of the Faith
they do not have the liberty to violate the rights of others. Since,
Articles 62(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Constitution and sections 99(1)
(d), (e) and (f) of the Act refer to Islam, therefore, these may be
interpreted in the light of Shariah. A Muslim may or may not be
saying his/her prayers and may not be fasting in the month of
Ramadan, but these are matters which, in the light of Shariah,
cannot be investigated into either by the State or by any
individual. Islam does not stipulate punishment in this world for
non-observance of rituals; these are matters within the exclusive
domain of Almighty Allah. Therefore, by analogy non-observance
of rituals by a man or woman cannot be made a pretext to exclude
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 184
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

him/her from Parliament. To hold otherwise would be in negation

of Islam, and the Constitution. Article 277(1) of the Constitution
requires that, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity
with the Injunctions of Islam." Consequently, if Articles 62(1)(d),
(e) and (f) of the Constitution and Sections 99 (1) (d), (e) and (f) of
the Act are interpreted on the touchstone of Islamic Shariah there
remains no doubt that personal matters of the Faith remain
immune from examination or consequence in this world.

18. However, the provisions of the Constitution and the Act

must be given full effect to when attending to the rights and
obligations due to the people or Huqooq-ul-Ibad. Such an
interpretation is in accordance with the language of the
Constitution and the Act, and does not conflict with what
Almighty Allah states in the Holy Qur'an nor the
directions/teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
be upon him). The petitioner gained entry into the Balochistan
Assembly deceitfully; by violating the Act and the Constitution.
Islam requires that a person abides by the laws of the place
he/she lives. In addition, Islam does not permit encroachment
upon the rights of others. By putting himself forward as a
candidate, when the petitioner was not qualified, he violated the
law, and the rights of those who had abided by the law. The rights
of the voters too were violated as they were deceived into believing
that he had the requisite educational qualifications. The
petitioner also lied on oath, and gained an advantage by his lie,
which is yet another contravention of Islam's stipulated rights of
the people or Huqooq-ul-Ibad. The petitioner also diverted public
funds for his personal use, which neither the law nor Islam
permits. The petitioner, therefore, to use the language of the
Constitution, cannot be stated to be qualified to be elected or
chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

19. The Hon'ble Tribunal held that, "the petitioner, does

not/did not fulfil the qualifications that are provided in Article 62
of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for a candidate
to fulfil while going to contest the elections." The Hon'ble Tribunal
further held that, "Similarly, the allegation of payment of more
than Rs. 2,281,000/- (Rupees Two Million Two Hundred Eighty
One Thousand Only) to his two sons and other relatives is again
adversely affects the bona fides, militates and offends the claim of
respondent No.1 [petitioner herein] being Ameen, sagacious,
truthful an non-profligate." We are in complete agreement with
the findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality.

In an earlier case of Obaidullah v. Senator Mir Muhammad Ali

Rind and 2 others (PLD 2012 Balochistan 1) the same

Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court of Balochistan had

written for a Division Bench as under:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 185
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

12. There is also another aspect to consider. In view of the

convictions of Mr. Rind for corruption and embezzling/stealing
from the public exchequer, which allegations he has accepted,
the question arises whether, being a Muslim, he can be
categorized to be "of good character" or someone who "is not
commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions" and
thus attract the bar contained in Article 62(1)(d) of the
Constitution. This provision has not been changed by the
Eighteenth Amendment. The disqualification under this
provision is not time-related, but perpetual. Quranic teachings
promote an ethical framework for human behaviour. Almighty
Allah describes believers as, "Those who are faithfully true to
their Amanat and to their covenants" (Surah al-Mu'minun,
23:8). The Almighty directs, "give full measure and full weight
with equity, and defraud not people of their things and commit
not iniquity in the earth, causing corruption." (Surah Hud,
11.85). Theft or misappropriating or converting to ones own
use property given in trust or amanat is haram and a hadd
according to the Quran and Sunnah. Allah has condemned this
action and decreed an appropriate punishment for it (Surah al-
Maa'idah, 5:38). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him) cursed the thief because he is a corrupt element in
society, and if he is left un-punished, his corruption will spread
and infect the body of the ummah (Bukhari, al-Hudood, 6285).
What indicates that this ruling is definitive is that fact that a
Makhzoomi noblewoman stole at the time of the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him), and, Usamah ibn Zayd
wanted to intercede for her. The Prophet (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) became angry and said, "Do you
intercede concerning one of the hadd punishments set by
Allah? Those who came before you were destroyed because if a
rich man among them stole, they would let him off but if a
lowly person stole, they would carry out the punishment on
him. By Allah, if Fatimah bint Muhammad were to steal, I
would cut of her hand," (Bukhaari, Ahadith al-Anbiya, 3216).

13. In the Nomination Form submitted by Mr. Rind he

suppressed the fact of his two convictions. The suppression
was not something Mr.Rind could have forgotten, overlooked or
was an insignificant matter. Thus his declaration on oath, that,
"I fulfil the qualifications specified in Article 62, of the
Constitution and I am not subject to any of the
disqualifications specified in Article 63 of the Constitution or
any other law for the time being in force for being elected as a
member of the Senate" was clearly false. The question arises
whether in making such a blatantly false declaration he
"violates Islamic Injunctions" to attract Article 62(1)(d) of the
Constitution.

14. Almighty Allah states in the Holy Quran, "... break not
the oaths after you have confirmed them" (Surah An-Nahal,
16:91). "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she
has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a
means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be
more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by
this" (Surah An-Nahal, 16:92). "And make not your oaths, a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 186
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

means of deception among yourselves, lest a foot may slip after

being firmly planted, and you may have to taste the evil of
having hindered (men) from the Path of Allah and yours will be
a great torment" (Sarah An-Nahal, 16:94). "... Whosoever
breaks his pledge, breaks only to his own harm and whosoever
fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah, He will bestow on
him a great reward" (Surah Al-Fath, 48:10). "Allah will not
punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but he will
punish you for your deliberate oaths [if false]" (Surah Al-
Maidah, 5:89). "And those who keep their trusts and covenants
.... shall dwell in Paradise" (Surah Al-Ma'arij, 70:32). "Those
who are faithfully true to their trusts and to their covenants
who shall inherit Paradise" (Surah Al-Mu'minun, 23:8), "Allah
said: 'This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their
truth' "(Surah Al-Maidah, 5:119). "0 you who believe! Be afraid
of Allah, and be with those who are true" (Surah At-Taubah,
9:119).

15. Lies fall into two distinct categories. Those uttered to

deceive and to gain an advantage, in the present case to be able to
contest elections, and innocent lies without malice or any
intended deception. In this case Mr. Rind in reply to the question
in the Nomination Form, Have you ever been indicted in criminal
proceedings or convicted for the violation of any law (excluding
minor traffic violations)? responded by stating No which was an
admittedly false statement and made on Declaration and Oath.
Legal and Constitutional consequences follow from making such a
false declaration on oath and are clearly not permissible in Islam
and thus Mr. Rind would run foul of Article 62(1)(d) as well.

16. The Legislature in its wisdom has incorporated Article

62(1)(d) and it is therefore the duty of the courts to interpret
and apply it. We are however cognizant that the same may be
misused for ulterior motives, for instance a Muslim may not be
saying his prayers or fasting and it be alleged that he stands
disqualified under Article 62(1)(d). However, the Creator in His
Infinite Wisdom and Mercy has created a distinction between
those disobediences which do not adversely affect others and
those that do, and thus haqooq-ul-Allah and haqooq ul-abad.
The observances of ritual finds favour with our Lord and may
also determine whether an individual gains entry into Paradise,
however, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Surah al-
Baqarah, 2:256). Even the Messengers of Allah were given the
task of simply conveying the message (Surah al-Imran, 3:20
and Surah al-Mai'dah, 5:99) and it was left for the people to
believe or not or abide by the prescriptions of the Faith or not,
but the people do not have the liberty to resort to crimes,
including murder, theft, misappropriation of entrusted
property et cetera, which adversely affect the rights of others. It
is also reasonable to presume that the Legislature only wanted
to restrict entry of criminals (thieves, embezzlers et cetera) into
the portals of Parliament and not those who were not observing
the rituals of their Faith; the probability of the former category
would not detract from them being good law makers, ministers,
chief ministers or even Prime Minister, but the nation cannot
be entrusted into the hands of the latter category.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 187
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Unfortunately, Mr. Rind by his criminal conduct has himself

ensured that the doors of Parliament are closed to him.

17. In view of the abovementioned two convictions for

corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation of public
property and for knowingly making a false declaration on oath
Mr. Rind cannot be stated to be "of good character" or someone
who "is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic
Injunctions" in terms of Article 62(1)(d). Therefore, on this
count too he does not qualify to be elected, chosen or continue
as member of Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

18. Individuals must take responsibility for their actions.

The court has been empowered to ensure implementation of the
Constitution and the weight of its responsibility if individuals
are unable to do so themselves. Mr. Rind manipulated his
position for personal benefit and committed crimes. He did not
stay away from public office, as the law required, but proceeded
to file a false Nomination Form to again acquire it. Ethically,
morally and constitutionally he betrayed himself and the people
of Pakistan. Consequently this court is left with no option but
to declare that Mr. Rind cannot hold the public office of
Senator under Article 62(1)(d) and (g) and Article 63(1)(h) of the
Constitution of Pakistan and the writ of quo warranto is issued
against him as he has usurped, intruded into and is unlawfully
holding the public office of Senator. For the foregoing reasons
Mr. Rind is also permanently disqualified to be elected or
chosen as, and forever being a member of
Parliament and respondents Nos.
2 and 3 are directed to ensure the same.

The approach adopted in the above mentioned two cases towards

interpretation of the relevant provisions of Article 62 of the

Constitution restricting their applicability to public conduct of a

person affecting others rather than his private conduct not

affecting generality of the populace has been found by me to be

quite useful and the same is, therefore, approved as it renders the

said provisions more capable of being applied and enforced by a

court or tribunal with some degree of clarity and certainty. In the

present case respondent No. 1 has been in public life for the last

about thirty-six years, he has been holding the highest elected

public offices in the country for most of the said period and the

allegations leveled against him pertain to corruption, corrupt

practices and money laundering, etc. Such allegations leveled

against the said respondent, thus, surely attract the provisions of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 188
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution even when the above mentioned

restrictive approach of interpretation is adopted.

122. Concluding the discussion about the relevant four properties

in London I hold that all the varying and ever changing stories

about acquisition of the said properties advanced by the children

of respondent No. 1 have remained unestablished from the flimsy,

sketchy and inadequate record relied upon by them and such

stories have even otherwise been found by me to be fantastic and

unbelievable. We had been informed that Mr. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif, respondent No. 7, had studied in England between the

years 1992 and 1996, Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif, respondent No. 8,

had studied in that country between the years 1994 and 1999 and

the relevant properties had admittedly come in possession of

respondent No. 1 and his family between the years 1993 and 1996.

Two young students in occupation of four residential properties in

one of the most expensive areas of London was surely

extraordinary. Admittedly those two boys were not earning hands

at that time and they had no independent source of income and

were, thus, dependents of their father, respondent No. 1, till then.

Instead of telling the truth the children of respondent No. 1

decided to hide behind divergent and conflicting stories which in

the financial world were nothing but fairytales. All such stories and

explanations, including those of investment, placement or retention

of some funds belonging to their grandfather namely Mian

Muhammad Sharif with Al-Thani family of Qatar in the year 1980

and settlement of such investment, placement or retention in the

year 2005, are, therefore, categorically and unreservedly rejected

by me. Even Mr. Salman Akram Raja, the learned counsel for the

sons of respondent No. 1, had admitted before us in so many words

that the information supplied by the children of respondent 1

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 189
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

regarding acquisition of the relevant properties in London was

incomplete. On the authority of Lord Reid in the case of

Haughton v. Smith (1975 A.C. 476, 500) it is said that the law may

sometimes be an ass but it cannot be so asinine as that. This

Court had observed in the case of Rashad Ehsan and others v.

Bashir Ahmad and another (PLD 1989 SC 146) that The law

sometimes is called an ass but the Judge should, as far as it is

possible, try not to become one. Similarly in the case of Mst. Aziz

Begum v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1990 SC 899) this

Court had reiterated the principle that the law may be blind but

the Judge is not. The case in hand is not about asininity or

blindness of any law but respondent No. 1 and his children wanted

an asinine and blindfolded acceptance of their explanations in

respect of acquisition of the relevant properties which I refuse to

do. As regards respondent No. 1 he held very high public offices

when his dependent children, and through them he himself, came

in possession of the relevant very expensive properties in London

and, thus, he was under a legal, moral and political obligation to

account for and explain his position in that regard. He offered no

explanation in respect of possession or acquisition of those

properties in his two addresses to the nation, he claimed before the

representatives of the nation in the National Assembly that the

said properties had been purchased by the family and before this

Court he went into a mode of complete denial. In the year 2010 the

then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, in an

unprecedented move to clear his name from the shadow of the 2G

scandal, had offered: I shall be happy to appear before the Public

Accounts Committee if it chooses to ask me to do so. I sincerely

believe that like Caesars wife, the Prime Minister should be above

suspicion. In all his speeches mentioned above respondent No. 1

had claimed that the entire record in respect of acquisition of the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 190
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

relevant properties was available and would be produced when

asked for in any inquiry but before this Court he not only detached

himself from his children in respect of those properties but also

failed to produce any record explaining how the relevant properties

had been purchased or acquired as claimed by him. The learned

counsel for respondent No. 1 was repeatedly reminded by us that

by adopting that mode the said respondent was taking a big

gamble but the respondent persisted with the same little realizing

that when a court of law, and that too the highest Court of the

land, asks for an explanation then there is no room left for

gambling and one is under a legal obligation to come out clean

which the said respondent did not or decided not to. Protection

against self-incrimination available under Article 13 of the

Constitution is relevant only to a criminal case which the present

proceedings are not. Even otherwise, no such protection has been

claimed by respondent No. 1 before us probably realizing that

claiming such protection impliedly acknowledges criminality in the

matter. There may be many definitions of the word honest but

deliberate withholding or suppression of truth is not one of them

and the same is in fact an antithesis of honesty. I am, therefore,

constrained to declare that respondent No. 1 has not been honest

to the nation, to the representatives of the nation in the National

Assembly and to this Court in the matter of explaining possession

and acquisition of the relevant four properties in London.

123. Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution provides as under:

62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen

as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-

---------------------
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 191
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and

ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of
law; and ---------------------

Article 63 of the Constitution provides as follows:

63. (1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or

chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament), if
---------------------
(p) he is for the time being disqualified from being elected or
chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) or of a
Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation. For the purposes of this paragraph law

shall not include an Ordinance promulgated under Article 89 or
Article 128.
---------------------
(2) If any question arises whether a member of the Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a
member, Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall,
unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the
question to the Election Commission within thirty days and if he
fails to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to
have been referred to the Election Commission.

(3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within

ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and
if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified, he
shall cease to be a member and his seat shall become vacant.

Section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

provides that

99. Qualifications and disqualifications.- (1) A person shall

not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of an
Assembly unless-
---------------------
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest
and ameen;

If a court of law declares a person to be otherwise than honest

then he is no longer qualified to be elected or chosen as a member

of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and if he has already been

elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

then through loss of the requisite qualification he necessarily

becomes disqualified from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament). Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution dealing with

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 192
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

qualifications and disqualifications are overlapping in many ways

and I find it difficult to accept the notion that Article 62 deals only

with pre-election qualifications and Article 63 deals with post-

election disqualifications only. The negative terminology used in

Article 62(1) [A person shall not be qualified to be elected or

chosen] and use of the word disqualifications in Article 62(2)

besides the words disqualified from being elected or chosen used

in Article 63(1) render the distinction between qualifications and

disqualifications contained in Articles 62 and 63 quite illusory. Be

that as it may, that issue is not strictly relevant to the case in

hand. The declaration by this Court through the present judgment

regarding lack of honesty of respondent No. 1 cannot by undone or

ignored by the Speaker/Chairman or the Election Commission of

Pakistan and such a declaration has to have an automatic effect.

In the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddique and others v. Federation

of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774) this Court had clarified

the legal position as follows:

43. Now we turn to the argument of the learned counsel for

Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani that every conviction, ipso facto, does
not disqualify a person from being a Member of the Parliament.
--------------------- It is to be seen that the respondent has been
found guilty of contempt of Court ---------------------. Exactly, the
same word i.e. ridicule has been used in Article 63(1)(g) of the
Constitution. Thus, it has attracted the provision of
disqualification. The 7-member Bench seized with the matter
could have passed order of his disqualification at that time, but it
seems that judicial restraint was exercised knowing that the
convict had a right of appeal and review. --------------------- And as
now a good number of petitions have been filed seeking
enforcement of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 9, 10A,
14, 17 and 25 of the Constitution as Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has
continued his position as Prime Minister instead of resorting to
the remedy available to him under the law, it is held that after
having been convicted and sentenced for contempt of Court he
has been disqualified, ipso facto, from being a Member of the
Parliament. ---------------------

48. Here, a word may also be said about the role and
functions of the Election Commission after a question has been
referred, or is deemed to have been referred to it, by the Speaker
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 193
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

under Article 63(2). Article 63(3) provides that the Election

Commission shall decide the question within ninety days from its
receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion
that the member has become disqualified, he shall cease to be a
member and his seat shall become vacant. Like the Speaker, the
Election Commission also cannot sit in appeal over a concluded
judgment of a superior court, and has to decide the question in
the affirmative that the convicted person has become disqualified,
therefore, his seat shall become vacant. As has been noted above,
there is a clear distinction in respect of other disqualifications
mentioned in Article 63(1), in respect whereof information is laid
before the Speaker involving determination of controversial facts.
Therefore, the Election Commission may, after a reference from
the Speaker, undertake a scrutiny in such matters. But where
there is a conviction recorded by a competent Court against a
person, who is a Member of the Parliament, which has attained
finality, the role and function of the Election Commission is
confined to issuing notification of disqualification of the
concerned Member on the basis of verdict of the Court.

(underlining has been supplied for emphasis)

The same principle applies with equal force to a declaration made

by a court of law regarding lack of honesty on the part of a member

of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) as it is not possible for either

the Speaker/Chairman or the Election Commission of Pakistan to

override or sit in judgment over a judgment of a court in that

regard.

124. The learned counsel for the private respondents repeatedly

urged before us that this Court ought to be slow in entering into

issues which relate to morality as the primary domain of a court of

law is legality of actions rather than their morality. We can

appreciate the concerns voiced in that regard but at the same time

we are bound by the oath of our office which requires us to

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to discharge

our duties in accordance with the Constitution. Some provisions

of Article 62 of the Constitution certainly contain strong moral

overtones but those provisions introduced into the Constitution by

a military dictator have not been undone by the popularly elected

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 194
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

parliaments in the last many decades. As long as the said

provisions are a part of the Constitution the courts of the country

are obliged not only to decide matters according to the same but

also to enforce them whenever called upon to do so. Apart from

that if honesty in holders of public offices is a moral issue then one

need not be apologetic about enforcing such a constitutional

obligation and if the people at large start ignoring the moral

prerequisites in public life then there would be no better forum

than the courts of the country to insist upon the values and ethos

of the Constitution. We must not forget that the so-called moral

provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution are meant to be

enforced even against those who claim to have popular support or

who have already demonstrated their popular endorsement and,

thus, popular support or endorsement of the person concerned

has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement of those provisions

of the Constitution. The said provisions of the Constitution lay

down the threshold for entering into or retaining an elective public

office and the courts of the country are mandated to apply and

enforce the said thresholds. Sitting at the apex of judicial authority

in the country this Court is the ultimate guardian not only of the

letter but also the spirit of the Constitution even where a section of

the society may have some reservations against some provisions of

the Constitution. William O. Douglas, the longest serving Judge of

the United States Supreme Court in the history of that country,

stated in his interview with Time magazine on November 12, 1973

that The Courts great power is its ability to educate, to provide

moral leadership. He was, obviously, not talking of private

morality but of social, political and constitutional morality.

125. It has also been argued before us by all the learned counsel

appearing for the private respondents that invoking jurisdiction of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 195
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and issuance of

declarations and directions by this Court in exercise of that

jurisdiction in matters of disqualification of elected representatives

as a first and the final resort shall set a dangerous precedent and,

therefore, this Court may not like to open the door to such a

perilous course. This argument, however, conveniently overlooks

the fact that, as already observed above, the present petitions had

been entertained by this Court in the backdrop of an unfortunate

refusal/failure on the part of all the relevant institutions in the

country like the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal

Investigation Agency, the State Bank of Pakistan, the Federal

Board of Revenue, the Securities and Exchange Commission of

Pakistan and the Speaker of the National Assembly to inquire into

or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the Election

Commission of Pakistan against respondent No. 1. Under Article

90(1) of the Constitution by virtue of his being the Prime Minister

of the country respondent No. 1 is the Chief Executive of the

Federation and it is practically he who appoints the heads of all the

institutions in the country which could have inquired into or

investigated the allegations leveled against respondent No. 1 and

his family on the basis of the Panama Papers. The remedy of filing

an Election Petition before an Election Tribunal under Article 225

of the Constitution is not available at this juncture. The Speaker of

the National Assembly could have referred the matter to the

Election Commission of Pakistan under Article 63(2) of the

Constitution but he has already dismissed various petitions filed

before him in that regard by as many as twenty-two members of

the National Assembly. It is proverbial that there is no wrong

without a remedy. It was in the above mentioned unfortunate

background that this Court had entertained these petitions and

now this Court cannot turn around and shy away from deciding
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 196
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the matter simply because it may set a dangerous precedent. As a

matter of fact it shall be a more dangerous precedent to set if this

Court declines to attend to the issue with a message that if a

powerful and experienced Prime Minister of the country/Chief

Executive of the Federation appoints his loyalists as heads of all

the relevant institutions in the country which can inquire into or

investigate the allegations of corruption, etc. against such Prime

Minister/Chief Executive of the Federation then a brazen blocking

of such inquiry or investigation by such loyalists would practically

render the Prime Minister/Chief Executive immune from

accountability. The precedent to be set by this Court through the

present petitions shall in fact be dangerous only for those Prime

Ministers/Chief Executives of the Federation who try to capture or

render ineffective all the institutions of accountability in the

country in order to protect themselves leaving no other option with

a whistleblower or an aggrieved or interested person but to

approach this Court for interference in the matter as a first, and

the only, resort. The precedent to be set by this Court through the

present petitions should in fact be a warning to all those rulers

who try to subjugate all the organs of power, enslave the

institutions of accountability and then in a false sense of security

and invincibility proclaim as Christopher Marlowes Tamburlaine

did by boasting that

I hold the Fates bound fast in iron chains,

And with my hand turn Fortune's wheel about,
And sooner shall the sun fall from his sphere
Than Tamburlaine be slain or overcome.

While dwelling on the subject of setting a dangerous precedent by a

court of law I am also reminded of the old bard William

Shakespeare. The power of literature for commenting upon a reality

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 197
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

through the medium of fiction is fascinating and an amazing

example of the same is the following part of Shakespeares play

Merchant of Venice which, though written hundreds of years ago in

foreign climes, appears to have been written for nothing but the

present case being handled by us in a different millennium and in

a different continent. While trying to avoid execution of an

oppressive judicial decree regarding payment of money by another

Bassanio beseeched the Duke as follows:

Yes, here I tender it for him in the court;

Yea, twice the sum: if that will not suffice,
I will be bound to pay it ten times o'er,
On forfeit of my hands, my head, my heart:
If this will not suffice, it must appear
That malice bears down truth. And I beseech you,
Wrest once the law to your authority:
To do a great right, do a little wrong,
And curb this cruel devil of his will.

which imploring was immediately retorted by Portia in the following

strong words:

It must not be; there is no power in Venice

Can alter a decree established:
'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will rush into the state: it cannot be.

and then what happened to that decree is another story. The

punch lines in the above mentioned excerpt appear to be Wrest

once the law to your authority: To do a great right, do a little

wrong. Fortunately for me, there is no wresting the law to my

authority and no little wrong is to be done by me to do a great right

in the matter of issuing a declaration against respondent No. 1

because the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3)

of the Constitution has already been exercised by this Court in

such matters in the cases of Muhammad Azhar Siddique and

others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC 774) and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 198
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089) and, thus, no new

or dangerous precedent is being set by me. I may, however, clarify

that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution has been exercised by me in the present case in the

backdrop of the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances of the

case mentioned above and that this Court shall continue to be

slow and circumspect in this regard where it is satisfied that the

normal constitutional or statutory courts/tribunals/fora can

conveniently, adequately and efficaciously attend to the relevant

issues or where the existing institutions of inquiry, investigation,

prosecution and accountability can do the job properly or can

satisfactorily be activated for the purpose.

126. As far as the issue regarding respondent No. 6 namely

Mariam Safdar allegedly being a dependent of her father namely

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is concerned I have found that the

material produced before us sufficiently established that

respondent No. 6 was a married lady having grown up children,

she was a part of a joint family living in different houses situated

in the same compound, she contributed towards some of the

expenses incurred by the joint family, she submitted her

independent tax returns, she owned sizeable and valuable property

in her own name, she was capable of surviving on her own and,

thus, she could not be termed or treated as a dependent of her

father merely because she periodically received gifts from her

father and brothers. In this view of the matter nothing turned on

respondent No. 1 not mentioning respondent No. 6 as his

dependent in the nomination papers filed by him for election to NA-

120 before the general elections held in the country in the year

2013.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 199
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

127. Through these petitions allegations had also been leveled

against respondent No. 1 regarding evasion of tax on the proceeds

of sale of the factory in Dubai which was sold for about 9 million

US Dollars, regarding late filing of Wealth Statements for the years

2011 and 2012 (which allegation was not pressed during the

arguments), regarding the gifts of Rs. 31,700,000 made by

respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 6 and of Rs.

19,459,440 by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 8

being sham and not disclosed, and in respect of the gifts received

by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 7 not having been treated

as income from other sources. The learned counsel for respondent

No. 1 explained before us that the said allegations attracted the

provisions of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution and section 99(1A)

(t) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 but in terms of the

facts of the present case the disqualification mentioned in those

provisions was not relevant. He maintained that the crucial factors

for the said disqualification were default and dues and it had

already been clarified by this Court in many a case referred to by

him that in the absence of any adjudication there could not be any

dues and, hence, no default could be alleged. According to him no

determination had been made and no finding had been recorded by

any tax authority against respondent No. 1 in respect of any tax

due. He also clarified that respondent No. 1 was neither a Director

nor a shareholder of the factory in Dubai. He had gone on to

submit that the Wealth-Tax Act, 1963 was repealed in the year

2003, at the time of repeal of that law no proceeding was pending

against respondent No. 1 and, therefore, at the present stage no

officer or machinery was available to determine any concealment,

etc. by the said respondent rendering the issue dead. With

reference to the record placed before this Court he pointed out that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 200
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the gifts made by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondents No. 6

and 8 were actually disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his Wealth

Statements and such payments had been made through cheques

which had also been placed on the record. As regards the gifts

made by respondent No. 7 in favour of respondent No. 1 it was

submitted by him that respondent No. 7 had a National Tax

Number in Pakistan and he was a non-resident Pakistani and,

therefore, gifts made by him in favour of his father could not be

treated as income from other sources as was evident from the

provisions of section 39(3) read with sections 81, 111, 114, 116,

120, 120(2) of the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001. He also pointed

out that by virtue of the provisions of sections 122(2) and 122(5) of

the Income-Tax Ordinance, 2001 finality stood attached to the

matter after five years of commencement of the assessment order

even if there had been any concealment. In support of the

submissions made above he had relied upon many cases decided

by this Court. The above mentioned submissions of the learned

counsel for respondent No. 1 have been found by me to be valid

and, hence, acceptable. The allegations leveled by the petitioners

regarding evasion of taxes by respondent No. 1 are, therefore, held

not to have been established within the limited scope of the present

petitions.

128. Adverting to the two FIRs registered by the Federal

Investigation Agency and a Reference filed by the National

Accountability Bureau against respondent No. 1, respondent No.

10 and others I note that all those criminal proceedings had been

quashed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore at a time when

respondent No. 1 was serving as the Prime Minister of the country

and the manner in which such proceedings were quashed, it is

observed with respect, had left much to be desired. To top it all,

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 201
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

neither the Federal Investigation Agency nor the National

Accountability Bureau challenged such quashing of criminal

proceedings before this Court.

129. FIR No. 12 was registered at Police Station FIA/SIU,

Islamabad on November 10, 1994 in respect of offences under

sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 109, PPC read with section 5(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Article 3 of the Holders

of Representative Office (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977

against Mukhtar Hussain and four Directors of Hudabiya

Engineering (Pvt.) Limited. The final Challan was submitted in that

case before a Special Court constituted under section 3 of the

Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984.

The allegations in that case were that on August 26, 1993 two fake

accounts were opened in the names of two persons namely

Suleman Zia and Muhammad Ramzan in Habib Bank, A. G.

Zurich, Lahore with small amounts and subsequently both were

issued Dollar Bearer Certificates worth 750,000 US Dollars by the

Union Bank Limited against cash receipt of Travelers Cheques

encashed through American Express, New York. Allegedly the

amount from these accounts was transferred to an account in the

name of one Kashif Masood Zia at Bank of America, Lahore. Later

on another account was opened in the name of Mrs. Nuzhat Gohar

Qazi in Bank of America, Lahore and an amount of .05 million US

Dollars was also transferred from her account to the account of the

above mentioned persons. All those accounts were allegedly found

to be fictitious. It was alleged that the accused persons Mukhtar

Hussain and four Directors of Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Limited,

in collaboration with the officials of Habib Bank A. G. Zurich,

Lahore and Bank of America, Lahore under the influence of Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan,

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 202
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

managed to draw, by opening three fake accounts, an amount of

Rs. 60 million by raising loan against the account of Kashif

Masood Qazi. It was alleged that it was the accused persons black

money which was fraudulently utilized by them to procure further

wrongful gains. Respondent No. 1 was an accused person in that

case. FIR No. 13 was registered at Police Station FIA/SIU,

Islamabad on November 12, 1994 in respect of offences under

sections 419, 420, 468 and 471, PPC, section 5(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1947 and Article 3 of the Holders of

Representative Office (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977

and the final Challan was submitted in that case before a Special

Court constituted under section 3 of the Offences in respect of

Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The allegations leveled in

that case were that two fake accounts were opened in the names of

two persons namely Muhammad Ramzan and Asghar Ali in Habib

Bank A. G. Zurich, Lahore by depositing Travelers Cheques

amounting to 2 million US Dollars in those accounts and on the

request of the account-holders they were issued Dollar Bearer

Certificates for the above two amounts. Subsequently another fake

account was opened in Citi Bank, Lahore in the name of one Mrs.

Sikandara Masood Qazi by depositing Dollar Bearer Certificate

amounting to 150 million US Dollars. Later on Dollar Bearer

Certificate for another amount of 1 million US Dollars was also

deposited in her account. Another allegation leveled in that case

was that Citi Bank, Karachi created a loan of Rs. 40 million in

favour of Messers Hudabiya Paper Mills against the deposit of

account of Mrs. Sikandara Masood Qazi against weak/inadequate

security, which loan was still outstanding. Allegedly, during inquiry

none of the above named account-holders could be traced at the

given addresses. It was alleged that the accused persons, with the

blessings of Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, had

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 203
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

not only indulged in money laundering but had also cheated the

government. After submission of the Challans in connection with

the above mentioned criminal cases before the trial court Writ

Petitions No. 1361 and 1362 of 1994 were filed by the accused

party seeking quashing of the FIRs but both those writ petitions

were dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench,

Rawalpindi. Subsequently two bail applications (Criminal

Miscellaneous Nos. 846/B and 847/B of 1994) were filed by the

accused persons which were converted into Writ Petitions No. 1376

and 1377 of 1994 and were dismissed by a learned Division Bench

of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi on

December 28, 1994 [Reference: Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif and

2 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of

Interior and 2 others (1995 P.Cr.L.J. 1224)]. Subsequently another

Writ Petition No. 14532 of 1994 was filed at the Principal Seat of

the Lahore High Court, Lahore seeking a direction to the

investigating agency to refrain from taking any proceedings under

the aforementioned two FIRs which writ petition was dismissed by

a learned Judge-in-Chamber of that Court on December 19, 1994.

An Intra-Court Appeal No. 16 of 1995 filed against that order of

dismissal of the writ petition was pending before a Full Bench of

the Lahore High Court, Lahore comprising of five Honourable

Judges when two fresh writ petitions were filed by the accused

party seeking saving the accused party from the agony of the trials

which would be an exercise in futility. Admittedly no application

had been filed by the accused party before the trial court under

section 265-K, Cr.P.C. seeking their premature acquittal and the

pretext for filing the writ petitions was that the trial court was

proceeding with matters pending before it at a very slow pace!

Without waiting for the decision of the Intra-Court Appeal pending

before a 5-member Bench of the same Court, ignoring that two

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 204
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

earlier writ petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs had been

dismissed by the High Court itself, irrespective of the fact that two

bail applications of the accused persons had already been

dismissed by the High Court holding that prima facie reasonable

grounds existed in believing in involvement of the accused persons

in the offences in issue, disregarding dismissal of a writ petition

seeking stoppage of proceedings of the FIRs and in the absence of

any application having been filed before the trial court under

section 265-K, Cr.P.C. the fresh writ petitions were allowed by a

learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, the

Challans submitted in both the criminal cases were quashed and

the accused persons were acquitted by invoking section 561-A,

Cr.P.C. [Reference: Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of

Pakistan and others (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1584)]. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.

could not have been invoked by the High Court on that occasion

because it had already been settled by this Court that the remedy

under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was not an additional or alternate

remedy and if the jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was

available to the High Court then a writ petition was not competent.

A novel course had been adopted in the matter by the High Court

by allowing a writ petition by invoking and exercising its

jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and adoption of such a

course by the High Court was nothing but extraordinary. Apart

from that under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. the High Court could at

best have ordered quashing of the criminal proceedings but it

could not have ordered acquittal of the accused persons as the

accused persons had never applied for their acquittal before the

trial court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. and the earlier writ

petitions seeking quashing of the relevant FIRs had already been

dismissed by the High Court itself. The High Court had not only

quashed the Challans submitted in those two criminal cases but

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 205
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

had also proceeded to take the extraordinary step of acquitting the

accused persons in exercise of writ jurisdiction of that Court under

Article 199 of the Constitution foreclosing any possibility of any

fresh trial of the accused persons in view of the principle of

autrefois acquit and astonishingly the Federal Investigation Agency

or the State never bothered to challenge that judgment of the High

Court before this Court. Respondent No. 1 was the Prime Minister

of Pakistan and the Chief Executive of the Federation at that time

and, thus, inaction of the Federal Investigation Agency or the State

in the matter was quite understandable and in the process a

financial scam involving millions of US Dollars was prematurely

buried without any possibility of its resurrection unless at some

future stage the State or the Federal Investigation Agency decides

to challenge the said judgment of the High Court before this Court

through a time-barred petition/appeal. Keeping in view the glaring

and extraordinary circumstances mentioned above I might have

been tempted to issue a direction to the State or the Federal

Investigation Agency in that regard but inappropriateness of such a

step has restrained me from doing that. An appellate court

directing a party to a case to file a petition or an appeal before it in

a matter decided by a Court below would surely be quite

objectionable and offensive to judicial impartiality which I cannot

allow to be compromised at any cost.

130. Reference No. 5 of 2000 had been filed against respondents

No. 1 and 10 and some others by the National Accountability

Bureau before an Accountability Court with allegations of money

laundering, etc. to the tune of Rs. 1242.732 million (over Rs. 1.2

billion) and in that Reference reliance had also been placed upon a

judicial confession made by respondent No. 10 before a Magistrate

First Class, Lahore on April 25, 2000. It was alleged in that

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 206
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Reference that respondent No. 10 was instrumental in laundering

of 14.886 million US Dollars upon the instructions and for the

benefit of respondent No. 1 by opening fake foreign currency

accounts in different banks in the names of others. Writ Petition

No. 2617 of 2011 filed before the Lahore High Court, Lahore in

connection with that Reference was allowed by a learned Division

Bench of the said Court on December 03, 2012 and the said

Reference was quashed through a unanimous judgment but the

learned Judges disagreed with each other over permissibility of

reinvestigation of the matter whereupon the matter was referred to

a learned Referee Judge who held on March 11, 2014 that

reinvestigation of the case was not permissible [Reference:

Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2016

Lahore 667)]. There was an apparent flaw in the judgment

rendered in that case by the learned Referee Judge because the

reference to the learned Referee Judge was as to whether an

observation could be made or not regarding reinvestigation of the

case and the reference was not as to whether reinvestigation could

be carried out or not! Even that judgment of the Lahore High

Court, Lahore was not challenged by the National Accountability

Bureau or the State before this Court and incidentally respondent

No. 1 was again the Prime Minister of Pakistan at that time. The

said Reference had been quashed by the Lahore High Court,

Lahore because in the investigation preceding filing of the

Reference the accused persons had not been associated and a

confessional statement made by respondent No. 10 had been made

before a Magistrate and not before the Accountability Court which

was the trial court. I may observe with respect that soundness of

both the said reasons prevailing with the High Court for quashing

the relevant Reference was quite suspect. The relevant record

produced before us shows that on April 20, 2000 a written

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 207
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

application had been submitted by respondent No. 10 before the

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau volunteering to make a

confession and seeking tender of pardon. Respondent No. 10

personally appeared before the Chairman, National Accountability

Bureau in that connection on April 21, 2000 and on the same day

full pardon was tendered by the Chairman to him under section 26

of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 whereafter

respondent No. 10 made a confessional statement before a

Magistrate First Class, Lahore on April 25, 2000. In view of this

development in the Final Reference filed by the National

Accountability Bureau on November 16, 2000 respondent No. 10

was referred to as a prosecution witness and not an accused

person. In the said confessional statement made by respondent No.

10 under section 164, Cr.P.C. he had confessed to being a party to

money laundering of 14.886 million US Dollars on the instructions

and for the benefit of respondent No. 1 and also to opening of fake

foreign currency accounts in different banks in the names of

others. It is not denied that making of the said confessional

statement and signing of the same had never been denied by

respondent No. 10 and he had never approached any court seeking

setting aside or annulment of that statement made by him and it

was the accused persons in the above mentioned Reference who

had maintained before the High Court that respondent No. 10 had

made his confessional statement under coercion of the military

regime of that time after remaining in custody for more than six

months (from October 15, 1999 to April 25, 2000). Be that as it

may the fact remains that in the Final Reference which was

quashed by the High Court respondent No. 10 was not arrayed as

an accused person and his status in that Reference was that of

merely a prosecution witness and, thus, quashing of that

Reference by the High Court did not entail respondent No. 10s
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 208
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

acquittal or smothering of any possibility of his trial on the said

charges at any subsequent stage. It is also quite obvious that with

quashing of the Reference and setting aside of the confessional

statement of respondent No. 10 the pardon tendered to respondent

No. 10 by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau under

section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ipso

facto disappeared with an automatic revival of the said

respondents status as an accused person who had never been

acquitted and against whom no Reference had been quashed. As

respondent No. 10 was not an accused person in the relevant

Reference when it was quashed and reinvestigation of which was

declared by the High Court to be impermissible, therefore, I see no

reason why after restoration of respondent No. 10s status as an

accused person in that case reinvestigation to his extent and filing

of a Reference against him cannot be undertaken or resorted to.

This is more so because the reasons prevailing with the Lahore

High Court, Lahore for quashing the Reference were not applicable
to the case of respondent No. 10 as he had been associated with

the investigation and there was evidence available against him

other than his confessional statement. The stark reality is that the

allegations of corruption, corrupt practices and money laundering,

etc. involving over Rs. 1.2 billion and prosecution on the basis of

such allegations had been scuttled by the High Court and this

Court would not like to stand in the way of reopening of the said

investigation or prosecution where even the smallest opening for

such investigation or prosecution is available or legally possible.

One of the prayers made before this Court by the petitioner in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016 is that the Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau may be directed to file a petition/appeal

before this Court against the judgment of the Lahore High Court,

Lahore whereby Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by the National

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 209
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Accountability Bureau had been quashed and reinvestigation of the

matter was held to be impermissible and also that proceedings may

be initiated before the Supreme Judicial Council against the

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau under Article 209 of the

Constitution for his removal from office. The circumstances in

which Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by the National Accountability

Bureau had been quashed and reinvestigation of the matter was

held by the High Court to be impermissible might have tempted me

to issue a direction to the State or the National Accountability

Bureau to challenge the said judgment of the High Court before

this Court through a time-barred petition/appeal but I have found

it to be inappropriate for an appellate court to direct a party to a

case to file a petition or an appeal before it in a matter decided by a

Court below. Issuance of such a direction can have the effect of

compromising the impartiality of the appellate court and clouding

its neutrality and, thus, I have restrained myself from issuing the

direction prayed for. Initiating proceedings against the Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau under Article 209 of the

Constitution may involve some jurisdictional issues and the same

may also be inappropriate for this Bench of the Court to order

because two of the Members of this Bench are also Members of the

Supreme Judicial Council and such Members may feel

embarrassed in the matter. Apart from that we have been informed

that the term of office of the present Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau is about to expire in the next few months

and his term of office is non-extendable.

131. It may be true that the Challans in the above mentioned two

FIRs registered with the Federal Investigation Agency had been

quashed and the accused persons therein had been acquitted by

the Lahore High Court, Lahore and Reference No. 5 of 2000 filed by
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 210
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the National Accountability Bureau before an Accountability Court

had also been quashed by the said Court and thereby the

allegations leveled against respondents No. 1 and 10 and some

others in those matters had remained without a trial but the fact

remains that the evidence collected or the material gathered by the

investigating agencies in connection with those cases does not

stand vanished and the same remains available and can be

usefully utilized if such evidence or material is also relevant to

some other allegations leveled against the said respondents or

others.

132. From the stands taken and the material produced by

respondent No. 1 and his children before this Court it has emerged

as an admitted position that respondent No. 1 was, and he still is,

a holder of a public office when he and his children came in

possession of the relevant properties in London between the years

1993 and 1996 and they are still in admitted possession of those

assets which are claimed to be owned by one of the children of

respondent No. 1 since the year 2006. It is again an undisputed

fact that at the time of taking over possession of the said

properties all the children of respondent No. 1 were non-earning

students and his wife was a household lady with no independent

sources of income of their own and, thus, they were dependents of

respondent No. 1 at that time. No other claimant to those assets

has surfaced anywhere so far. Section 9(a)(v) of the National

Accountability Ordinance, 1999 provides as follows:

A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit

or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt
practices:-
---------------------
(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns,
possesses, or has acquired right or title in any assets or holds
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 211
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets or pecuniary

resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which
he cannot reasonably account for or maintains a standard of
living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of
income ---

Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 lays

down as under:

In any trial of an offence punishable under clause (v) of sub-

section (a) of Section 9 of this Ordinance, the fact that the
accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in
possession for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily
account, of assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his
known sources of income, or that such person has, at or about
the time of the commission of the offence with which he is
charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or
property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court
shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused
person is guilty of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices
and his conviction therefor shall not be invalid by reason only
that it is based solely on such presumption.

The value of the relevant assets in London is ostensibly

disproportionate to the declared and known sources of respondent

No. 1s income when his tax returns produced before this Court

are kept in view. Even when repeatedly required by this Court

respondent No. 1 has refused to account for the said assets in

London and has adopted a mode of complete denial vis--vis his

connection with those assets. Adoption of such mode of denial and

refusal/failure on the part of respondent No. 1 to produce any

record prima facie amounts to failure to account for those assets

and the matter, therefore, clearly and squarely attracts the

provisions of section 9(a)(v) as well as section 14(c) of the National

Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Hence, the need for the National

Accountability Bureau to proceed against respondent No. 1 on the

allegation of committing the offence of corruption and corrupt

practices. It goes without saying that while proceeding against

respondent No. 1 under section 9(a)(v) of the National

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 212
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the evidence and material

collected by the Federal Investigation Agency in connection with

the above mentioned two FIRs and by the National Accountability

Bureau in connection with its Reference No. 5 of 2000 mentioned

above may also be utilized by the National Accountability Bureau

and the Accountability Court if any such evidence or material is

relevant to acquisition of the four properties in London. Quashing

of the Challans and doubtful and premature acquittal in the cases

registered with the Federal Investigation Agency or quashing of the

National Accountability Bureaus Reference by the Lahore High

Court, Lahore did not mean that the evidence or material collected

in those cases had disappeared or had been rendered unutilizable

for any other purpose. Even the above mentioned report prepared

by Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the Federal Investigation Agency may be

utilized by the National Accountability Bureau and the

Accountability Court while proceeding against respondent No. 1

and others under section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability

Ordinance, 1999 if the said report and the evidence and material

appended therewith or referred to therein has any nexus with

acquisition of the relevant four properties in London. Similarly, the

other assets acquired and the businesses set up by respondent No.

1s children in Pakistan and abroad also need to be probed into by

the National Accountability Bureau to find out whether respondent

No. 1s children have acted as Benamidars of respondent No. 1 in

those assets and businesses or not and if so whether respondent

No. 1 can satisfactorily account for those assets and businesses or

not if he is discovered to be their actual owner.

133. It is unfortunate that despite a passage of over one year

since surfacing of the Panama Papers the Chairman, Federal

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 213
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Board of Revenue, respondent No. 5, has taken no serious step and

has made no meaningful effort towards playing his due role in

probing into the matter so as to find out whether any illegality had

been committed by anybody in the matter or not. Except for issuing

a few notices and writing a few letters the Federal Board of

Revenue has not pursued the matter at all and such inaction and

apathy can only be attributed to lack of will and dereliction of duty.

The same is the case with respondent No. 2 namely Mr. Qamar

Zaman Chaudhry, Chairman, National Accountability Bureau who

appeared before this Court and maintained that the National

Accountability Bureau was cognizant of its duties and

responsibilities in connection with the issues arising out of the

Panama Papers but respondent No. 2 was waiting for the

regulators to look into the matter first. We repeatedly asked him

to elaborate as to who those regulators were and where did they

figure in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but he did

not even bother to respond to those questions and conveniently

kept quiet! When his attention was drawn towards the provisions of

section 18 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

according to which the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau

could take cognizance of such a matter on his own he simply

stated that he would take action in terms of the Ordinance. On

that occasion the Court wondered who the referred to regulators

could be because the same word had also been used in the two

statements of the gentleman from Qatar brought on the record of

the case by the children of respondent No. 1. When asked by the

Court as to whether he would consider challenging before this

Court the judgment passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore

quashing Reference No. 5 of 2000 and barring reinvestigation into

that matter by the National Accountability Bureau or not he

categorically stated that at the relevant time he had decided not to

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 214
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

file any petition/appeal against that judgment and he had no

intention to do that at this stage either. That stance of respondent

No. 2 was found by me to be quite disturbing, to say the least,

because the Reference quashed by the High Court involved

allegations of corruption, corrupt practices and money laundering,

etc. to the tune of over Rs. 1.2 billion and the split decision

rendered by the High Court in that matter was, as discussed

above, ostensibly not free from infirmities. It is admitted at all

hands that it was respondent No. 1 who had appointed respondent

No. 2 as the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau in

consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in the National

Assembly. In Christopher Marlowes play Doctor Faustus Doctor

Faustus had sold his soul to Lucifer (the Devil) for a temporary

worldly gain which had ultimately led to his perpetual damnation

and it appears that in the present case respondent No. 2 had also

decided to act similarly for the purpose of repaying his benefactor.

Such a possibility of the Chairman, National Accountability

Bureau being beholden to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the

Opposition in the National Assembly for his appointment and

thereby extending favours to them and refusing to proceed against

them when otherwise required to do so had been commented upon

by me in the case of Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan through Secretary

Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad (PLD 2011 SC 365) as follows:

36. --------------------- In the past not too distant complaints of

persecution of the political opposition in the country by the
government of the day through utilization of the National
Accountability Bureau or its predecessor institutions had
unfortunately been too many and willingness of the heads of such
institutions to slavishly carry out and execute the vendetta of the
government of the day against its opponents had also been
shamefully rampant. It was in that background that at a time
when there was no Parliament in existence this Court had
recommended in the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2001 SC 607) that in the
matter of appointment of Chairman, National Accountability
Bureau consultation ought to be made by the President with the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 215
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Chief Justice of Pakistan and that recommendation had been

given effect to through the National Accountability Bureau
(Amendment) Ordinance XXXV of 2001 but subsequently through
the National Accountability Bureau (Amendment) Ordinance
CXXXIII of 2002 the Chief Justice of Pakistan had been excluded
from the consultees and he was substituted by the Leader of the
House and the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly
who were to be consulted by the President before making an
appointment of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau. That
deletion had come about because by that time the Parliament had
once again come into existence and consultation with the Leader
of the Opposition in the National Assembly was expected to go a
long way in allaying fears and apprehensions of the political
opposition regarding its possible persecution and victimization by
the government of the day through the National Accountability
Bureau and its Chairman. The spirit of the amended provisions,
thus, was that the Leader of the Opposition in the National
Assembly would be taken on board, his opinion would be given
due weight and consideration and he would have an effective say
in the matter of appointment of Chairman, National
Accountability Bureau so that the political opposition in the
country may not have an occasion to cry foul in the matter.

37. As time progressed another dimension stood added to the

issue when, apart from apprehended persecution of the political
opposition, the National Accountability Bureau, which happens to
be a premier and high-profile anti-corruption institution of the
country, started being perceived as an institution which was
possibly being misused for covering up corruption at high places
and such cover up was perceived to be controlled and managed
through appointment of its handpicked Chairman. It was in that
backdrop that in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v.
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2010 SC 265) this Court
reiterated its earlier recommendation and suggestion with regard
to consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the matter of
appointment of Chairman, National Accountability Bureau. That
recommendation and suggestion was once again repeated by this
Court in the case of The Bank of Punjab v. Haris Steel Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. and others (supra). It must be appreciated that
consultation with the Leader of the Opposition in the National
Assembly and consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan are,
in the developing scenario, essentially meant for separate noble
and laudable purposes which are both directed towards achieving
the very objects for which the National Accountability Bureau was
established, i.e. elimination of corruption by persons holding
public offices and achievement of such objects through a process
which is just, fair, impartial and evenhanded. ---------------------
Similarly, corruption being an unfortunate bane of our society in
the current phase of our history and even the high public offices
being not immune from serious allegations in that regard, leaving
the matter of appointment of the head of the most important anti-
corruption institution in the country in the hands only of those
very persons who could possibly, in future or present, be a
subject of inquiries, investigations or trials for corruption would,
apart from giving rise to the issue of conflict of interest, defeat the
very object of the relevant law and would, thus, also prejudicially
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 216
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

affect, directly or indirectly, the Fundamental Rights of the

citizens at large. ---------------------

(underlining has been supplied for emphasis)

As neutrality and impartiality of respondent No. 2 in the matter of

proceeding against respondent No. 1 for commission of the offence

under section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance,

1999 stands visibly and demonstrably compromised, therefore, it

would be in the fitness of things if he is restrained from exercising

any power, authority or function of the Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau in relation to the proceedings to be initiated

by the said Bureau against respondent No. 1 and in respect of

such proceedings all the powers, authority and functions of the

Chairman, National Accountability Bureau may be exercised by an

Implementation Bench of this Court to be constituted by the

Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan for which a request is being

made through the present judgment.

134. In the case of Air Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar

Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army

Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1) a declaration was made by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution to the effect that corruption and corrupt practices

had been committed in the holding of a general election in the

country and in the judgment passed in that case respondent No.

1s stated involvement in the matter had been referred to twice in

that context and the matter of criminality of respondent No. 1 and

others in that connection was required to be investigated by the

Federal Investigation Agency. Similarly in the case of Mohtarma

Benazir Bhutto and another v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD

1998 SC 388) the constitutional issue regarding dissolution of the

National Assembly by the President of Pakistan had been decided

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 217
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

by this Court with reference to different grounds of dissolution

including the allegation of rampant corruption but later on it had

been clarified by this Court in Mohtarma Benazir

Bhutto v. President of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 77)

through a review petition that the constitutional aspects of the

case had been decided by this Court only upon a tentative

appraisal of the material produced on the issue of corruption, the

conclusions arrived at by the Court were restricted only to the

constitutional context of dissolution of the National Assembly and,

therefore, the observations recorded in the constitutional matter

were not to be treated as proof of the charges for any other

purpose. I would, therefore, like to clarify in the present case in

advance that the declarations and the observations made by me in

the constitutional context shall not influence or prejudice the

inquiry, investigation or prosecution of any criminal activity or

conduct involved in the matter and that the Accountability Court

to be seized of the case shall adjudicate upon the criminal aspect

of this case without being influenced or prejudiced by anything

observed or done by this Court in the present proceedings.

135. For what has been discussed above these petitions are

allowed and it is declared by me as follows:

(i) All the versions advanced by respondent No. 1s children

explaining how the relevant four properties in London (Properties

No. 16, 16a, 17 and 17a, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London W1K

7AF, United Kingdom) had come in possession of respondent No.

1s immediate family or how the said properties had been acquired

by the family have been found by me to be conflicting and

unbelievable and the same are, therefore, rejected.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 218
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(ii) Respondent No. 1 namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,

Prime Minister of Pakistan/Member of the National Assembly has

not been honest to the nation, to the representatives of the nation

in the National Assembly and to this Court in the matter of

explaining possession and acquisition of the relevant properties in

London.

(iii) As a consequence of the declaration issued regarding lack of

honesty on the part of respondent No. 1 the said respondent has

become disqualified from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and

section 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and,

therefore, he is liable to be denotified by the Election Commission

of Pakistan as a member of the National Assembly forthwith with a

consequence that he ceases to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan

from the date of denotification.

(iv) Respondent No. 1 was, and he still is, a holder of a public

office and his children have admittedly been in possession of the

relevant properties in London since the years 1993 and 1996 when

they were dependents of respondent No. 1; the value of the relevant

assets in London is ostensibly disproportionate to the declared and

known sources of respondent No. 1s income when his tax returns

produced before this Court are kept in view; respondent No. 1 has

failed/refused to account for the said assets in London and has

adopted a mode of complete denial vis--vis his connection with

those assets which prima facie amounts to failure/refusal to

account for those assets; and the matter, therefore, clearly and

squarely attracts the provisions of section 9(a)(v) as well as section

14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 necessitating

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 219
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the National Accountability Bureau to proceed against respondent

No. 1 and any other person connected with him in that regard.

(v) While proceeding against respondent No. 1 and any other

person connected with him in respect of the offence under section

9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the evidence

and material collected by the Federal Investigation Agency in

connection with FIRs No. 12 and 13 dated November 10, 1994 and

November 12, 1994 respectively and by the National Accountability

Bureau in connection with its Reference No. 5 of 2000 can also be

utilized by the National Accountability Bureau and the

Accountability Court if any such evidence or material is relevant to

possession or acquisition of the relevant properties in London.

Even the report prepared by Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the Federal

Investigation Agency in September 1998 and the evidence and

material appended therewith or referred to therein can be utilized

by the National Accountability Bureau and the Accountability

Court while proceeding against respondent No. 1 and any other

person connected with him in respect of the said offence if the said

report and the evidence and material appended therewith or

referred to therein has any nexus with possession or acquisition of

the relevant properties in London.

(vi) Similarly, the other assets acquired and the businesses set

up by respondent No. 1s children in Pakistan and abroad also

need to be probed into by the National Accountability Bureau to

find out whether respondent No. 1s children have acted as

Benamidars of respondent No. 1 in those assets and businesses or

not and if so whether respondent No. 1 can satisfactorily account

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 220
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

for those assets and businesses or not if he is discovered to be

their actual owner.

(vii) Respondent No. 10 namely Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Dar was

not arrayed as an accused person in the Final Reference No. 5 of

2000 filed by the National Accountability Bureau and his status in

that Reference was merely that of a prosecution witness when the

said Reference was quashed against the accused persons therein

by the Lahore High Court, Lahore and reinvestigation qua them

was barred and, thus, quashing of that Reference by the High

Court did not entail respondent No. 10s acquittal or smothering of

any possibility of his trial on the said charges at any subsequent

stage. Upon quashing of that Reference and setting aside of the

confessional statement of respondent No. 10 by the High Court the

pardon tendered to respondent No. 10 by the Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau under section 26 of the National

Accountability Ordinance, 1999 ipso facto disappeared with an

automatic revival of the said respondents status as an accused

person in that Reference who had never been acquitted and against

whom no Reference had been quashed. It is, therefore, declared

that after restoration of respondent No. 10s status as an accused

person in that case reinvestigation to his extent and filing of a

Reference against him can be undertaken or resorted to by the

National Accountability Bureau.

136. On the basis of the declarations made above the following

directions are hereby issued by me:

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 221
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(i) The Election Commission of Pakistan is directed to issue a

notification of disqualification of respondent No. 1 namely Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif from being a member of the Majlis-e-

Shoora (Parliament) with effect from the date of announcement of

the present judgment.

(ii) The President of Pakistan is required to take necessary steps

under the Constitution to ensure continuation of the democratic

process through parliamentary system of government in the

country.

(iii) The National Accountability Bureau is directed to proceed

against respondent No. 1 and any other person connected with him

in respect of the offence of corruption and corrupt practices under

section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and

during such proceedings the evidence and material collected by

the Federal Investigation Agency in connection with FIRs No. 12

and 13 dated November 10, 1994 and November 12, 1994

respectively and by the National Accountability Bureau in

connection with its Reference No. 5 of 2000 besides the report

prepared by Mr. A. Rehman Malik of the Federal Investigation

Agency in September 1998 and the evidence and material

appended therewith or referred to therein may also be utilized by

the National Accountability Bureau if any such evidence or

material is relevant to or has nexus with possession or acquisition

of the relevant properties in London.

(iv) The National Accountability Bureau is also directed to probe

into the other assets acquired and businesses set up by

respondent No. 1s children in Pakistan and abroad to find out

whether respondent No. 1s children have acted as Benamidars of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 222
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

respondent No. 1 in those assets and businesses or not and if so

whether respondent No. 1 can satisfactorily account for those

assets and businesses or not if he is discovered to be their actual

owner.

(v) As neutrality and impartiality of the incumbent Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau Mr. Qamar Zaman Chaudhry has

been found by me to be compromised in the matters of respondent

No. 1, therefore, he is directed not to exercise any power, authority

or function in respect of the matters directed above. The

Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan is requested to constitute an

Implementation Bench of this Court in the above mentioned regard

and in the interest of doing complete justice it is ordered that all

the powers, authority and functions of the Chairman, National

Accountability Bureau in the above mentioned matters of

respondents No. 1 shall henceforth be exercised by the said

Implementation Bench and the relevant officials of the National

Accountability Bureau shall seek all the necessary orders in those

matters from the Implementation Bench till Mr. Qamar Zaman

Chaudhry completes his current non-extendable term of office. The

Implementation Bench shall also monitor the progress made by the

National Accountability Bureau in the matters referred to above

and it shall also supervise the investigation being conducted by it

in the matters as and when found necessary and called for besides

issuing any order deemed expedient in the interest of justice.

(vi) The National Accountability Bureau is directed to proceed

against respondent No. 10 namely Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Dar in

connection with its Reference No. 5 of 2000 wherein the said

respondent was not an accused person when the said Reference

was quashed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore and reinvestigation

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 223
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

against the accused persons therein was barred because after

quashing of that Reference against the accused persons therein

and after setting aside of the confessional statement of respondent

No. 10 his status in that Reference stood revived as an accused

person against whom no Reference had been quashed and

reinvestigation qua him was never ordered to be barred.

(Asif Saeed Khan Khosa)

Judge
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 224
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- Petitioner in Const. P. No. 29 of 2016

seeks: disqualification of respondents No. 1, 9 and 10; recovery of

money laundered alongwith properties purchased through the British

Virgin Islands Companies and Companies in other safe havens;

issuance of a direction against respondent No. 2 to discharge his

obligation under Section 9 and 18 of the National Accountability

Ordinance, 1999 by taking the investigation in mega corruption cases

to their logical end; placement of the name of Mian Nawaz Sharif and

his family members named in the Panama Leaks on the Exit Control

List (ECL); issuance of an order to initiate claims on behalf of the

Government of Pakistan for recovery of properties in question and

direction against the Chairman Federal Board of Revenue to scan and

scrutinize the tax returns and assets declaration of respondent No. 1

and his family.

2. The case of the petitioner, so to speak, is that respondent

No. 1 in his address to the nation on 05.04.2016 and to the Parliament

on 16.05.2016 made false statements which are not only contradictory

but also in conflict with the statements made by his sons, respondent

No. 7 and 8 herein; that he tried to explain the assets of his family

members but omitted to mention what they invested and earned in

Dubai; that a tripartite agreement witnessing the sale of 75% shares in

Gulf Steel Mill at Dubai has been brought on the record but a look at

the said agreement would reveal that the sale did not bring them any

cash, as its proceeds amounting to AED 21 Million were adjusted

against the debt liability of BCCI Bank; that the remaining 25% shares

were sold subsequently to the same vendee but how its proceeds

swelled up to AED 12 Million is anybodys guess; that how did this

money, irrespective of its source, reach Jeddah, Qatar and the U.K. is

again anybodys guess; that respondent No. 7 pretended to become

the owner of flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A at Avenfield House Park
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 225
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Lane London in 2006 but according to the order of the High Court of

Justice, Queens Bench Division in the case of Al-Taufeeq Company

for Investment Funds Limited. Vs. Hudaibia Paper Mills Limited

and three others, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants had a beneficial interest

in the assets specified in the schedule thereto; that respondent No. 1

has consistently evaded income tax on the sums remitted to him as

gift by his son Hussain Nawaz, respondent No. 7 herein, with the

connivance of the Chairman FBR; that frank admission of respondent

No. 6 in her interview that she is still dependent on her father and the

fact that she is husbanded by a person who has neither any source of

income nor pays any taxes leave no doubt that she is a dependent of

respondent No. 1 for all legal and practical purposes; that the

correspondence between Mr. Errol George, Director FIA, British Virgin

Islands and Mossack Fonseca & Co. (B.V.I.) Limited shows that

respondent No. 6 is the beneficial owner of the flats in London; that

when it has been established on the record that respondent No. 6 is a

dependent of respondent No. 1 and the correspondence between Mr.

Errol George, Director FIA and Mossack reveals that respondent No. 6 is

the beneficial owner of the flats, respondent No. 1 was duty bound to

disclose her assets in his tax returns and that his failure to do so would

expose him to disqualification under Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(1)(o) of

the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that even if it is

assumed that respondent No. 6 by virtue of owning the flats worth

millions cannot be termed as a dependent of respondent No. 1, the

latter cannot lay his hands off the ownership of the flats as respondent

No. 6 had no means to purchase them in 1993-1994; that it would still

be a case of concealment of assets which would expose respondent

No. 1 to disqualification in terms of the provisions of the Constitution

mentioned above; that how did the Sharif family establish Azizia Steel

Mill at Jeddah, where did they get the means of investment from, how
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 226
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

long did it remain functional and when did the Sharif family dispose it

of are the questions shrouded in mystery inasmuch as they have not

been witnessed by anything in black and white; that how did its sale

proceeds reach the U.K. without involving any banking channel is

another dark spot of the story where no light has been shed by

respondents No. 1, 7 and 8; that the other sums running into millions

gifted by respondent No. 7 to respondent No. 1 also raise questions

about the legitimacy of their source and vulnerability of respondent

No.1 to tax liability notwithstanding the sums have been transmitted

through banking channels; that the tax and the wealth tax statements

of respondent No. 6 for the years 2011-2012 reflect her shareholding in

six companies without disclosing the source enabling her to acquire

them; that expenses incurred by respondent No. 6 on travelling and

acquisition of a valuable car have not been accounted for; that it has

never been the case of respondent No. 6, nor can it be that her

husband catered therefor when he paid no tax prior to 2013; that

where no explanation for her princely extravagance is coming forth it

can safely be deduced that she is still a dependent of respondent No.

1; that even the purpose of establishing offshore companies in the

British Virgin Islands is no other but to protect the looted and

laundered money which is an offence of the gravest form and that the

people indulging in such activities have no right to hold the highest

office of the Prime Minister; that the document purported to be the

trust deed showing respondent No. 7 as beneficiary and respondent

No. 6 as the trustee does not fit in with the story set up by respondent

No.1 when considered in the light of the orders passed by the High

Court of Justice Queens Bench Division in the case cited above; that

respondents No. 6, 7 or 8 could not claim the ownership of flats

purchased in 1993 when they being 20, 21 and 17 years old

respectively at the time had no independent sources of income; that

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 227
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

interview of respondent No. 8 with Tim Sebastien in November, 1999

belies the story thus set up in the trust deed; that nothing would turn

much on establishment of the Jeddah Steel Mill, its sale and

transmission of its sale proceeds to the U.K. in 2005 when none of the

events has been witnessed by any documentary evidence; that the

report of

Mr. A. Rehman Malik, he submitted as Additional Director General, FIA

to the then President of Pakistan is replete with details as to how the

Sharif family laundered money, how it opened foreign currency

accounts in the names of fake persons for converting black money into

white and what was the design behind forming offshore companies in

the British Virgin Islands and Jersey Island; that the confessional

statement of Mr. Ishaq Dar respondent No.10 herein is another piece of

evidence giving the details of the money laundered by the Sharif

family; that the case involving respondents No. 1 and 10 has been

quashed by the Lahore High Court on flimsy and fanciful grounds; that

respondent No. 2 despite knowing that the case has been quashed on

flimsy and fanciful grounds did not file an appeal against the judgment

of the Lahore High Court and thus failed to do what he was required by

law to do; that where did the Working Capital Fund provided to Flagship

Investments Limited come from as is indicated in its financial

statement for the period ending on 31st March, 2002 has neither been

explained by respondent No. 1 nor respondent No. 8; that the stance of

respondent No. 1 that the money went to the hands of respondents No.

7 and 8 after the sale of Jeddah Steel Mills is also belied by the

financial statements of the aforesaid company as it already had

sufficient capital in its accounts before the said sale; that even the

bearer share certificates cannot bring respondents No. 1 and 6 out of

the slimy soil unless they are proved to have been registered in

conformity with Section 41 of the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004;

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 228
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that a bearer share in a company is disabled for a period during which

it is held by a person other than a custodian who is approved by the

Commission in terms of Section 50-A(1) and 50-B of the Financial

Services Commission Act, 2001; that transfer or purported transfer of

an interest in the bearer share certificate is void if effected during the

period it is disabled as it does not carry any of the entitlement which it

would otherwise carry subject to sub-section 3 of Section 68 of the Act;

that whether the bearer share was transferred to Hussain Nawaz or

any other person in accordance with Section 68 of the BVI Business

Companies Act is for him to prove and that where he fails to prove it,

transfer of any interest in the bearer share certificates shall be void.

3. The case of the petitioner in Civil Petition No. 30 of 2016

in nutshell is that respondent No. 1 looted and laundered the money,

formed British Virgin Island Companies, purchased as many as four

flats at Avenfield House Park Lane London in the names of his

dependents who at that time had no source of income; that he failed to

declare their assets in his tax returns; that in his speech addressing the

nation and the speech addressing the Parliament he stated many

things which being false, incorrect and in conflict with the statement of

respondent No. 7 expose him to disqualification under Articles 62(1)(f)

and 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan;

that the letter of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani being concocted

and based on hearsay cannot come to his rescue nor can it save him

from disqualification in terms of the Articles mentioned above. To

support his contentions the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of

Imtiaz Ahmed Lali. Vs. Ghulam Muhammad Lali (PLD 2007 SC

369), Mian Najeeb-ud-Din Owasi and another. Vs. Amir Yar

Waran and others (PLD 2013 SC 482), Muhammad Rizwan Gill.

Vs. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828), Muddasar

Qayyum Nahra. Vs. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and others (2011 SCMR 80),
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 229
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Malik Umar Aslam. Vs. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2014

SCMR 45) and Sadiq Ali Memon. Vs. Returning Officer, NA-237,

Thatta-I and others (2013 SCMR 1246).

4. Case of respondent No. 1 is that prayers made in the

petition are vague and generalized; that issuance of a direction is

sought against the Chairman NAB to discharge his obligations under

the NAB Ordinance, 1999 but the cases pending investigation in mega

corruption events have not been mentioned; that direction against

respondent No. 4 for placing the name of Mian Nawaz Sharif and his

family members named in Panama Leaks on the ECL is sought but no

argument has been addressed in support of this prayer; that an order

is sought to be passed against respondents No. 2 and 3 directing them

to initiate claims on behalf of the Government of Pakistan for recovery

of the properties but none of them has been identified; that yet

another direction is sought to be issued against respondent No. 5 to

probe and scrutinize the tax returns and assets declaration of

respondent No. 1 and his entire family but none of its members has

been named in the petition; that the last prayer tends to stretch the

gamut of controversy to an extreme which is unworkable altogether;

that with the prayer of this nature nothing can be pinned on

respondent No. 1 when he has no BVI Company or any other company

of the sort; that respondent No. 1 cannot be dragged in the

controversy stirred in the petition stemming from the Panama Leaks

when he is neither a director nor a shareholder nor a beneficial owner

nor a guarantor in any of the BVI Companies; that the speeches

addressing the nation and the Parliament respectively giving broad

outlines of the business established and pursued by late Mian

Muhammad Sharif cannot be construed like pleadings nor could they

be considered as item-wise replies to the allegations sworn on an

affidavit; that conflict between the statements of respondent No. 1 and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 230
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that of respondents No. 7 and 8 cannot be blown out of proportion so

long as the latter have not been proved to be correct; that respondent

No. 1 giving the outlines of the business of his father in his speech may

have made errors or omissions, but when there is nothing on the

record to show that intention behind them was suppression of truth,

they cannot be used to his detriment in any proceeding; that after the

amendment in clause 1(f) of Article 62 of the Constitution, every

person shall be deemed to be sagacious, righteous, non-profligate,

honest and ameen unless a declaration to the contrary has been given

by a court of law; that since no such declaration has been given by any

court of law it cannot be given by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, that too, when it is

sought on the basis of the facts which are seriously disputed; that no

finding about disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

or Sections 78(1)(d) or 99(1)(f) of the Representation of the People Act,

1976 could be given unless the facts constituting such disqualification

are proved or admitted; that this is what has been held by this Court in

the judgments rendered in the cases of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad

Chaudhry. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar and others (2016 SCMR 1),

Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial. Vs. Jamshed Alam and others (PLD

2013 SC 179), Muhammad Khan Junejo. Vs. Federation of

Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law Justice and Parliamentary

Affairs and others (2013 SCMR 1328), Allah Dino Khan Bhayo.

Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others

(2013 SCMR 1655), Abdul Ghafoor Lehri. Vs. Returning Officer,

PB-29, Naseerabad-II and others (2013 SCMR 1271)

Muhammad Siddique and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan

(2013 SCMR 1665), Sadiq Ali Memon Vs. Returning Officer, NA-

237, Thatta-1 and others (2013 SCMR 1246), Mian Najeeb-ud-

Din Owasi and another Vs. Amir Yar Waran and another (PLD
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 231
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2013 SC 482), Mudassar Qayyum Nahra Vs. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and

others (2011 SCMR 80), Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan Vs.

Muhammad Ajmal and another (PLD 2010 SC 1066), Haji Nasir

Mehmood Vs. Mian Imran Masood and others (PLD 2010 SC

1089), Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar Vs. Chief Election

Commissioner, Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 SC 817),

Muhammad Rizwan Gill Vs. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC

828), Muhammad Siddique Baloch Vs. Jehangir Khan Tareen

(PLD 2016 SC 97), Rai Hassan Nawaz Vs. Haji Muhammad Ayub

and another (Civil Appeal No.532 of 2015 decided on

25.5.2016) and Ishaq Khan Khakwani Vs. Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2015 SC 275); that where Article 63(2) of the

Constitution itself provides a mode and even a forum for deciding

about the fate of a person who has become disqualified from being a

member, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution could not usurp the functions of such forum; that

where no nexus of respondent No. 1 has been established with the

Panama Leaks, his disqualification cannot be sought on the basis of his

speech in the parliament or an omission therein, as it being privileged

by virtue of Article 66 of the Constitution cannot be used against him in

any proceeding of any court; that there is no equation between this

case and that of Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, Prime Minister of

Pakistan. Vs. Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan

and others (PLD 2012 SC 466) as in the latter case the charge of

defying the judgments of this Court against the then Prime Minister,

culminating in his disqualification, was proved to the hilt whereas

nothing of that sort is available against respondent No.1 in this case;

that where no documentary or any other aboveboard evidence pointing

to the involvement of respondent No. 1 in acquisition of the flats is

available on the record nothing can be fished out of his speech

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 232
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

delivered in the Parliament; that the privilege extended to the

Members of Parliament has been recognized the world over and even

in the neighbouring countries as is evident from Section 6 of the

Constitution of the USA and Article 105 of the Constitution of India

notwithstanding they are phrased and punctuated a bit differently; that

Erskine May in his monumental work titled as the Law, Privileges,

Proceedings and Usage of Parliament cites a line of precedents

recognizing such a right; that what is the stature of this treatise in our

jurisprudence can well be gathered from the words used by his lordship

Mr. Justice A. R. Cornelius, as he then was, in the judgment rendered in

the case of Pakistan. Vs. Ahmed Saeed Kirmani (PLD 1958 SC

397) when he said I, therefore, need make no apology for referring to

this work in this judgment as an authority upon point of procedure in

the conduct of Parliament or legislative Assembly, which are not dealt

with in detail in the Rules of Procedure of that Parliament or Assembly;

that this privilege has to be respected notwithstanding it is an

exemption from the general law because the House cannot perform its

functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; that

even the Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes the unqualified and

absolute privilege of a Member of Parliament in respect of any speech

made by him in Parliament or any Committee thereof; that such

privilege is not lost merely because the speech is telecast or published

in newspapers; that the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed against

him for what he said in Parliament or any Committee of Parliament,

whether the statement is true or false and whether the statement is

made in good faith or maliciously; that case of Owen Robert

Jennings. Vs. Rojer Edward Wyndham (2004 UK PC 36), Regina.

Vs. Chaytor [2011] 1 A.C. 684] A. Vs. United Kingdom [2003] 36

E.H.R.R. 51 and Prebble Vs. Television New Zealand Ltd. [1995]

1 AC 321 are the luminous examples from the U.K. jurisdiction; that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 233
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the dicta rendered in the cases of The Commissioner of Income

Tax, Kolkata Vs. Padam Chand Ram Gopal (AIR 1970 SC 1577)

and In re Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India (AIR

1965 SC 745) radiate recognition of this privilege; that the words

used in Article 66 being clear and unambiguous need no precedent, all

the same the judgment rendered in the case of Syed Masroor Ahsan

and others. Vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (PLD 1998 SC

823) is quite illustrative and enlightening on the subject; that the

petitioner failed to make out a case for disqualification of respondent

No. 1 in terms of Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(1)(o) of the Constitution as he

neither defaulted nor delayed payment of any wealth tax; that if at all

any part of the wealth of respondent No. 1 escaped assessment, the

Wealth Tax Officer on receipt of a definite information could reopen the

matter in accordance with Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963; that

the petitioner has no locus standi to say even a word in this behalf

before this Court when it has never been his case that the competent

officer despite receipt of a definite information in this behalf remained

unmoved; that prayers No. 1 and 6 being inconsistent with each other

cannot be countenanced when the fate of the former is dependent on

the fate of the latter; that para 18(xi) of Constitution Petition No. 29 of

2016 is incorrect when the amounts remitted and received through

gifts are fully reflected in the debit and credit entries of the respective

accounts; that the amount remitted through gifts by respondent No. 7

to respondent No. 1 is not liable to be taxed when it clearly and

squarely falls within the purview of Section 39(3) of the Income Tax

Ordinance, 2001; that when respondent No. 6 has been living on her

own and has independent sources of income none of the definitions

given in the Blacks Law Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary,

Workmans Compensation Act, 1923, Provident Funds Act, 1925,

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Employees Social Insurance

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 234
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Ordinance, 1992, Immigration Ordinance, 1979, Federal National

Foundation Ordinance, 2002 or any other law could make her a

dependent; that reference to the judgments rendered in the cases of

Fahim ud Din Farhum Vs. Managing Director Member WAPDA,

WAPDA House, Lahore and another (2001 SCMR 1955), Hand.

Vs. Ball and others [1947](1) Chancery 228) and Re Badens

Deed Trusts Baden and others. Vs. Smith and others (1969 1

ALL. E.R. (1016) are instructive and advantageous on the point; that

where the controversy emerging in this case is factual and cannot be

resolved without recording evidence, this Court in view of the dictum

rendered in the case of Pakistan Muslim League (N) Vs.

Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) would desist from

giving any decision on it while hearing a petition under Article 184(3)

of the Constitution; that in the case of Muhammad Asif. Vs.

Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2014 SC 206) this Court, no doubt,

intervened and handed down a verdict but on the basis of the

documents and the record which went undisputed; that this Court in

view of Articles 184(3) and 187 of the Constitution has power to issue

such direction, order or decree as may be necessary for doing

complete justice in any case or matter pending before it but where a

matter involving the same issue is pending before a forum having

power and competence to grant the desired relief, this Court does not

interfere; that the matter raised in this petition also calls for the same

treatment where Writ Petition No. 31193/16 filed in the Lahore High

Court and as many as four petitions raising the same issues filed in the

Election Commission against respondent No. 1 and one against

respondent No. 9 are pending adjudication and the fora mentioned

above have the power and competence to grant the desired relief.

5. The case of the petitioner in Const. P. No. 03/2017 is that

where respondent No. 4 in the said petition admitted that he and his
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 235
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

family members set up Gulf Steel Mill in Dubai, disposed it of, set up

Azizia Steel Mill in Jeddah and disposed that of, it is for him to prove

the trail of money and legitimacy of means whereby he and his

dependents purchased flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A at Avenfield

House Park Lane London; that where he did not prove either of them

nor did he disclose the assets of his dependents, he is liable to be

disqualified under Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(1)(o) of the Constitution;

that where respondent No. 4 has also violated the Oath of his Office in

his capacity as MNA as well as the Prime Minister, he is no more honest

and ameen, therefore, he is also liable to be disqualified on this score;

that respondent No. 4 in CP. No. 03 of 2017 cannot claim any privilege

or even immunity under Articles 66 and 248 of the Constitution

respectively when his speech is studded with lies and distortions and

related to the matters which are essentially personal; that respondent

No.4 while explaining the assets of his family used first person plural in

his speeches in and outside the Parliament but while defending himself

in the Court he denied to have any nexus with the assets of

respondents No. 6, 7 and 8; that where respondents No.6, 7 and 8 have

no sources of income, it is for respondent No.4 to explain where did

they come from and what was the channel they were taken through for

investment abroad; that where no evidence comes forth it shall be

presumed that the flats were purchased with the money having

spurious origin; that an inquiry in this behalf can be undertaken by this

Court even while hearing a petition under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution in view of the judgments rendered in the cases of

Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar Vs. Chief Election

Commissioner, Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 SC 817),

Muhammad Yasin Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary

Establishment Division Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC

132), Workers Party Pakistan through Akhtar Hussain

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 236
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others Vs. Federation of

Pakistan and two others (PLD 2012 SC 681), Muhammad Azhar

Siddiqui and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

2012 SC 774), Watan Party and another Vs. Federation of

Pakistan and another (PLD 2011 SC 997) and Muhammad Azhar

Siddique and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others

(PLD 2012 SC 660).

6. The case of respondent No. 6 as set up in her concise

statement, supplementary concise statement and yet another

statement is that she, ever since her marriage, has been living on her

own with her husband in one of the houses in Shamim Agri Farms,

Raiwind owned by her grandmother; that whatever she received,

purchased, spent gifted or disposed of has been fully indicated in her

tax returns, therefore, nothing adverse could be fished therefrom to

make out a case of disqualification of respondents No. 1 and 9; that

whatever her father gifted to her in any form was out of his abundant

love and affection for her; that she has never been a beneficial owner

of any of the flats at Avenfield House Park Lane London; that she

independently owns assets, pays taxes thereon and holds a National

Tax Number as is fully evident from her tax returns; that respondent

No. 1 disclosed in column 12 of his wealth statement for the year 2011,

an immovable property purchased in her name but that could not be

construed to make her a dependent as no other column for mentioning

such property was available in the relevant forms till the issuance of

SRO No. 841(1) of 2015 dated Islamabad the 26 th August, 2015; that

failure of respondent No. 9 to disclose in his tax returns the gift of

Rs.31,700000/- to respondent No. 6 would not entail anything adverse

to him when he annexed the wealth statement of respondent No. 6

with his nomination papers; that no relief whatever has been sought

against respondent No. 6; that when respondent No. 6 is not a

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 237
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

dependent of respondent No. 1, the latters failure to disclose her

assets in his wealth tax returns would not entail any liability against

him; that her contribution to the Shamim Agri Farms can well be

noticed from the returns for tax years 2013, 2014 and 2015 submitted

by Mst. Shamim Akhtar would also go a long way to prove her status as

being independent; that she lent and not borrowed from Chaudhry

Sugar Mills Ltd; that her assets even on 30 th June, 2010 were

Rs.73,510431/- and that if the figures mentioned have not been read

by the petitioner in their correct perspective, she could not be blamed

for that; that she paid the amount to respondent No.1 in the tax year,

2012 for the land he purchased for her in tax year 2011 through a

banking channel as is evident from the entries made at page Nos. 251

and 258 of CMA. No. 7530 of 2016; that if at all there has been any

misstatement or tax evasion it could be inquired into by the competent

forum and not by this Court; that respondent No. 6 in her interview

with Sana Bucha denied to have owned anything in and outside the

country but this statement cannot be treated as an admission or denial

aimed at concealing anything when she has disclosed all of her income

and assets in her tax returns; that the documents filed by the

petitioner in CMA. No. 7511 of 2016 appearing to be a company

resolution sent through as an email with the purported signature of

respondent No. 6 is forged on the face of it as the signature thereon

does not tally with any of the admitted signatures of respondent No. 6;

that the correspondence between Mr. Errol George, Director FIA, British

Virgin Islands and Mossack Fonseca & Co. (B.V.I.) Limited also appears

to be a fabrication when respondent No. 6 at no stage has been a

beneficial owner of the flats; that in all matters relating to public

interest litigation this Court has to guard against entertainment of a

petition on the basis of an information whose authenticity is open to

serious doubt; that since the expression dependent has not been
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 238
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

defined by Income Tax Ordinance, Representation of People Act or NAB

Ordinance recourse could be had to Blacks Law Dictionary which

defines it as one who relies on another for support or is not able to

exist or sustain oneself and that respondent No. 6 does not fall within

the definition of the word dependent when she lives on her own and

has independent means of sustenance; that if at any rate the question

whether she lives on her own and has independent means of existence

is disputed it being disputed cannot be inquired into in a proceeding

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan; that there is

nothing baffling in the gift of a BMW car by respondent No. 8 to

respondent No. 6 costing her Rs.35,000,00/- in the form of Customs

Duty and Taxes and bringing her a profit of Rs.19,664,955/- on its

having been traded in; that where many documents brought on the

record to justify initiation of an inquiry are fake and forged, the

petitioner is liable to be proceeded against under Section 469 of the

Cr.P.C.; that when respondent No. 6 has disputed the document

purported to have been signed by her it is worth nothing unless proved

in accordance with law; that even the opinion of the handwriting expert

given on comparison of her disputed and admitted signatures is worth

nothing unless he affirms his opinion on oath in the Court and faces the

test of cross-examination; that where the petitions appear to be

malafide and the purpose behind them is to settle personal score or to

gain a political mileage they cannot be entertained under Article

184(3) of the Constitution in view of the judgments rendered in the

cases of Hafeez-ud-Din. Vs. Abdur Razzak (PLD 2016 SC 79),

Janta Dal. Vs. H.S. Chowdary (AIR 1993 SC 829), S.P. Gupta. Vs.

President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), T.N.Godavarman

Thirumulpad. Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 2006 SC 1774);

that the principles and the provisions of law regulating the jurisdiction

of different courts and their hierarchies shall disappear where a lis

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 239
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

which could adequately be decided by such courts is entertained and

inquired into by this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

simply because it has been given the garb of public importance with

reference to the enforcement of fundamental right.

7. The case of respondent No. 10 is that the confessional

statement attributed to him is a result of inducement, coercion and

torture spread over a period of almost six months; that it is by no

stretch of imagination willed and voluntary; that the criminal

transaction sought to be reopened through the confessional statement

is past and closed as the same matter has been set at rest by the

Lahore High Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Hudabiya

Engineering (Pvt) Limited. Vs. Pakistan through Secretary,

Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and six others

(PLD 1998 Lahore 90); that even if the confessional statement is

assumed to have been made voluntarily, it cannot be used against

respondent No. 10 when it was recorded pursuant to the pardon

granted to him by the Chairman NAB under Section 26 of the National

Accountability Ordinance, 1999; that his status would remain that of an

approver unless the pardon granted is forfeited which is not the case

here; that a re-investigation of the case or yet another trial of

respondent No. 10 shall be barred by Article 13 of the Constitution of

Pakistan and Section 403 of the Cr.P.C.; that no parallel can be drawn

between this case and the case of Muhammad Yasin. Vs.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment

Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132) as in that case

the core issue was not discussed and decided by the High Court; that

where this case has been set at rest by a Bench of the Lahore High

Court in the case of Messrs Hudaibya Paper Mills Ltd and others.

Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 667)

and the Chairman NAB has not filed an appeal against the judgment of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 240
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the High Court, even in the second round of litigation, it cannot be

reopened through a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

of Pakistan.

8. The case of respondent No. 7 is that neither respondent

No. 1 has any nexus with flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A at Avenfield

House Park Lane London, nor any documentary evidence has been

brought on the record to establish it; that where no such documentary

evidence has been brought on the record to establish his nexus with

the aforesaid flats, the assertion that the statement of respondent No.

1 runs counter to the statements of respondents No. 7 and 8 would

prove nothing; that there is nothing in the tax returns, wealth

statement or even in the nomination papers of respondent No. 1 to

show that he defaulted or delayed the payment of any taxes or

concealed any of his assets, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to

disqualify respondent No. 1 is just a cry for the Moon; that as the entire

business inside and outside the country was in the hands of late Mian

Muhammad Sharif, it is impossible for respondent No. 7 to trace the

trail of money; that it is all the more impossible when more than three

decades have passed and the record of such transactions has either

been lost or taken away by the mercenaries of General Pervez

Musharraf in the wake of October, 1999 coup detat; that whatever trail

he could trace to is, that the Gulf Steel Mill was established by late

Mian Muhammad Sharif in early seventies by availing loan from a Bank

and land from the Municipality; that since the Mill hardly proved to be a

success, its 75% shares were sold in 1978 through a tripartite

agreement; that the money thus obtained was adjusted against its

outstanding liabilities; that the remaining 25% shares were sold in

1980 against a sum of AED 12 millions; that the money so received by

Tariq Shafi, as per his statement sworn on an affidavit, was entrusted

to Sheikh Fahad Bin Jasim Bin Jabir Al-Thani on the instructions of late
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 241
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Mian Muhammad Sharif in view of his longstanding business relations

with the Al-Thani family; that Mian Muhammad Sharif, after his exile

from Pakistan in December, 2000, advised Althani family to credit the

amount so entrusted together with its cumulative returns in the

account of respondent No. 7; that eventually the needful was done and

pursuant thereto Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani delivered the

bearer shares of Neilsen and Nescoll to respondent No. 7; that the

money as per the available record may not have been sent through the

banking channel but there is nothing unusual about it as an amount to

the tune of AED 12 millions could be carried in a small handbag; that

the orders passed by the High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division

do not tend to negate the version set forth by respondent No. 7 as the

orders bringing the flats under the charge were passed on the basis of

a statement sworn on an affidavit by Shezi Nackvi as is clear by the

tenor of the orders mentioned above; that the affidavit of the said Mr.

Shezi Nackvi dated 13.01.2017 gives added strength to the version;

that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are disputed and so

are the facts averred in the petition, therefore, no sweeping opinion,

one way or the other, could be given unless the documents are proved

in accordance with law and statements of the petitioner and his

witnesses, if any, are recorded on oath and subjected to the test of

cross-examination; that where the petitioner failed to prove the

accusation, failure of respondents No. 7 and 8 to substantiate any of

their stances would not expose them to any liability under any law;

that the judgment rendered in the case of The State. Vs.

Muhammad Hanif and 5 others (1992 SCMR 2047) would be quite

relevant to the case in hand; that this Court in the case of Dr. Arsalan

Iftikhar. Vs. Malik Riaz Hussain and others (PLD 2012 SC 903)

while dealing with a similar situation left determination of the disputed

questions of fact to a competent Court of law; that there is nothing in

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 242
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the version set up by respondents No. 7 and 8 as could be held to be

incapable of having happened; that the bearer shares remained with

Al-Thani and the day they were delivered to respondent No. 7 he

became owner of the flats; that there is no missing link in the trail of

money; that if at all there is any that was supplied by the letters

written by Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani; that respondents No. 7

and 8 cannot be equated with a person who travelled from rags to

riches overnight as they belong to a family which has been deep in

business ever since late 30s and made fortune in it, therefore, none of

the assets acquired or owned by any member of the Sharif family can

be held to be out of proportion to their known means and resources;

that at times respondents No. 6 and 7 may fall short of the documents

witnessing business transactions at different stages but that is partly

due to lapse of time and partly due to loss of the record in the

pandemonium of the coup dtat; that whatever record is available

does not show that respondent No. 6 ever held any proprietary interest

in the property; that the documents showing her to be the beneficial

owner are not worthy of reliance firstly because the signature thereon

neither appears to be of respondent No. 6 nor it tallies with her

admitted signature and secondly because it has not been owned by

Minerva; that the letter dated 6.2.2006 of Arrina Limited addressed to

respondent No. 7 shows that the former would liaise on his behalf with

service providers for Nescol Limited and Neilson Enterprises Limited;

that the correspondence between Arrina Limited and Minerva Trust and

Corporate Services Limited shows that the documents projecting

respondent No. 6 as beneficial owner of the flats is not believed to be

the latters authorship; that there are gaps in the version set up by

respondents No. 7 and 8 but they cannot be used to make up the

deficiencies in the case of the petitioner; that none of the respondents

on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioners could be

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 243
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

condemned when they have neither come from proper custody nor

they have been authenticated; that this Court in the cases of Air

Marshal (Retd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan. Vs. General (Retd.)

Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff and others (PLD

2013 SC 1), Watan Party and another. Vs. Federation of

Pakistan and others (PLD 2011 SC 997) and Moulvi Iqbal Haider

and others. Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o

Law and Justice and others (2013 SCMR 1683) gave a declaration

in a proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution chiefly

because the material forming basis of judgments was admitted; that

where no such material is available and the dispute raised before this

Court requires a probe, it could well be made by a machinery or a

Court of law provided by the normal law of the land as was held in Suo

Motu Case No. 05 of 2012 (PLD 2012 SC 664) regarding allegation

of business deal between Malik Riaz Hussain and Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar

attempting to influence the judicial process.

9. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the

Federation contended that form of the petition and the forum chosen

by the petitioner have to be looked at with reference to the context;

that the form of the petition may suggest that it is in the nature of quo

warranto but it partakes more of an election petition; that the issues

raised in the petitions being interconnected and intertwined with

personal political issues take it outside the scope of Article 184(3) of

the Constitution; that this Court can entertain a petition under Article

184(3) of the Constitution if it involves a question of public importance

with reference to the enforcement of a fundamental rights but in that

event it has to be shown that the question raised in fact involves a

question of public importance and that one of the fundamental rights

guaranteed by the Constitution has been breached; that when it has

not been averred in any of the petitions as to what is the question of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 244
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

public importance and where has the breach of any of the fundamental

rights taken place, all of them would merit outright dismissal; that it

has been settled in the case of Ishaq Khan Khakwani and others

Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2015 SC

275) that the expression honest and ameen being incapable of being

defined in clear terms cannot be left to the determination of a court

where except allegations and counter allegations, no undisputed

material in oral or documentary form is available; that every person is

sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen unless a

declaration to the contrary is given by a Court of law; that such

declaration can neither be given under Article 199 nor Article 184(3) of

the Constitution as was held in the case of Aftab Ahmed Khan. Vs.

Muhammad Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066); that where this dispute has

already been raised before the Election Commission and could also be

raised in terms of Article 63 of the Constitution before an appropriate

forum, this Court cannot step in; that even if a Member of Parliament

incurs a disqualification on account of his failure to submit a statement

of his assets and liabilities or those of his spouse and dependents, he

could be proceeded against under Section 42-A and punished under

Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act; that where

disqualification of a Member of Parliament is sought on the basis of a

material which is disputed, this Court as a matter of course leaves it to

the determination of a Court of law; that in no situation this Court will

act as an investigator or a Trial Court by arrogating to itself a power or

jurisdiction which has not been conferred on it by the Constitution or

an act of the Parliament.

10. The learned ASC for the petitioner in CP. No. 29 of 2016

while exercising the right of rebuttal reiterated that respondents No. 6,

7 and 8 in view of their tender ages could not acquire the flats nor

could they know anything about the trail of money, its growth,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 245
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

tripartite agreement and its implications, therefore, their statements

explaining the events culminating in the acquisition of the flats do not

deserve any serious consideration; that where respondent No. 1 in his

speeches in and outside the Parliament himself undertook to explain

the acquisition of the flats he was bound to explain it, and that when

he did not, it could well be gathered that he is not honest and ameen,

therefore, he is liable to be disqualified.

11. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, petitioner in Civil Petition No.30 of

2016 reiterated the same argument by submitting that Qatri letter

being outcome of an afterthought cannot be taken into account

especially when it is based on hearsay; that this Court has ample

power to do complete justice and as such can pass an order even

beyond what has been averred and prayed in the petitions. The

petitioner to support his contentions placed reliance on the judgments

rendered in the cases of Ch. Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. Vs. Mr. Zulfikar Ali

Bhutto and 2 others (PLD 1975 SC 383), Syed Masroor Ahsan

and others. Vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (PLD 1998 SC

248), Miss Benazir Bhutto. Vs. Federation of Pakistan and

another (PLD 1988 SC 416), Ch. Nisar Ali Khan. Vs. Federation

of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 SC 568), Muhammad Ashraf

Tiwana and others. Vs. Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1159),

Muhammad Yasin. Vs. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD

2012 SC 132), Pir Sabir Shah. Vs. Shad Muhammad Khan,

Member Provincial Assembly, N.W.F.P. and another (PLD 1995

SC 66), Hitachi Limited and another. Vs. Rupali Polyester and

others (1998 SCMR 1618), Sindh High Court Bar Association

through its Secretary and another. Vs. Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and

others (PLD 2009 SC 879), Pakistan Muslim League (N)

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 246
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

through Khawaja Muhammad Asif, M.N.A. and others (PLD

2007 SC 642) and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. Vs. The State

(PLD 2010 Lahore 81). With regard to the privilege claimed by

respondent No.1 the petitioner urged that it could only be claimed

when the speech or the subject matter of speech relates to the

businesses of the Parliament and the person of the speaker. He to

support his contention placed reliance on the cases of Canada (House

of Common) Vs. Vaid [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC 30) and R

Vs. Chaytor and others (2010 UKSC 52).

12. Learned ASC appearing for the petitioner in Civil Petition

No.3 of 2017 also reiterated the same arguments. He while defining

the expression honest referred to the definitions reproduced in the

case of Fazal Muhammad. Vs. Mst. Chohara and others (1992

SCMR 2182).

13. We have gone through the record carefully and

considered the submissions of learned ASCs for the parties as well as

the learned Attorney General for Pakistan.

14. The controversy urged before us relates to the ownership

of flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A at Avenfield House Park Lane London

acquired under the aegis of offshore entities. It came to the limelight in

the wake of the Panama Leaks. The leaks kicked off a storm the world

over which also spilled over the shores of this country. The immediate

reaction of respondent No. 1 to the leaks was that he delivered a

speech inside and another outside the Parliament. He in the said

speeches admitted the ownership of the flats and alluded to the means

whereby he and his family purchased them. However, in his concise

statement he denied to have owned the flats. Respondent No. 7 in his

concise statement claimed to have owned them. To explain the trail of

money he introduced the letters of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-

Thani. But how did it end up in the ownership of the flats still clamors
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 247
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

for an explanation. A bulk of unauthenticated documents brought on

the record by the petitioners is pitched against another bulk of

unauthenticated documents brought on the record by the respondents.

The questions arising out of the petitions, the bulk of documents and

the arguments addressed at the bar are summed up as under :-

i) whether respondent No. 6 could be held to be a

dependent of respondent No. 1 on 30 th June, 2013
and whether respondent No. 1 has failed to
disclose his assets and liabilities and those of his
spouse and dependents in Form-XXI of the
nomination papers as required by Section 12(2)(f)
of the Representation of the People Act and as
such is liable to be disqualified;
ii) whether respondent No. 1 or any of his
dependents or benamidars owns, possesses or
has acquired any assets or pecuniary resources
disproportionate to his known means of income;
iii) what a person is required to do and whether
Articles 62, 63 of the Constitution or Section 99 of
the Representation of People Act requires any
member of Parliament to account for his assets or
those of his dependents disproportionate to his
known means of income and whether his failure
to account for such assets calls for his
disqualification;
iv) what would be liability of a holder of public office
if he or any of his dependents or benamidars
owns, possesses or has acquired right or title in
any assets or pecuniary resources
disproportionate to his known means of income
which he cannot account for;
v) what are the fora provided by the Constitution and
the law to deal with the questions emerging from
Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(2) of the Constitution; and
vi) whether a case for disqualification of respondent
No. 1 in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution is spelt out by the speeches he
delivered in and outside the Parliament and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 248
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

whether such speeches in view of the provision

contained in Article 66 of the Constitution could
be used to his detriment in any proceeding in any
Court of law.
15. We would take up the first question first. What the

petitioners sought to canvass at the bar is that respondent No. 6 being

a dependent of respondent No. 1, is the beneficial owner of the flats at

Avenfield House Park Lane London, that the latter was bound to

disclose her assets and liabilities in his nomination form submitted on

30th June, 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA and that when

he did not do he is liable to be disqualified. This question on the face of

it is a disputed question of fact. At the very outset, we asked the

learned ASC for the petitioners whether this question could be decided

by this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan when

no undisputed evidence has been brought on the record to show that

respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 6 owns the flats mentioned above.

The learned ASC to answer the question cited the judgment rendered in

the case of Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Vs. Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan and others

(supra). But a huge difference lies between this case and that of Syed

Yousuf Raza Gillani. In this case the allegations leveled against

respondent No. 1 are yet to be proved while in the latter case, Syed

Yousuf Raza Gillani was proceeded against and convicted under Article

204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with

Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance for defying not only

paragraphs No. 177 and 178 of the judgment rendered in the case of

Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others. Vs. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2010 SC 265), but many other orders of this Court

directing him to write a letter for the revival of the Governments

request to the Swiss Authorities. When despite the conviction of Syed

Yousuf Raza Gillani the Speaker declined to refer the question to the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 249
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Election Commission within 30 days, this Court in the case of

Muhammad Azhar Siddique and others Vs. Federation of

Pakistan and others (supra) held that since no appeal was filed by

Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani against the said judgment, the conviction

attained finality; therefore, he has become disqualified from being a

Member of the Parliament in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the

Constitution. The ratio of the cases of Imtiaz Ahmed Lali. Vs.

Ghulam Muhammad Lali, Muhammad Rizwan Gill. Vs. Nadia Aziz

and others, Muddasar Qayyum Nahra. Vs. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and

others, Malik Umar Aslam. Vs. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others

and Sadiq Ali Memon. Vs. Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I

and others (supra) cited by petitioner in CP. No. 30 of 2016 is not

applicable to the case in hand as in those cases disqualification of the

candidates or the Members of Parliament was established through

evidence on the record. The case of Ch. Zahur Ilahi, M.N.A. Vs. Mr.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and 2 others (supra) too has no relevance to

the case in hand as no issue relating to Articles 204 or 248 of the

Constitution of Pakistan has been raised in this case. The case of Mian

Najeeb-ud-Din Owasi and another. Vs. Amir Yar Waran and

others (supra) deals with implementation of the judgment rendered

in the case of Muhammad Rizwan Gill Vs. Nadia Aziz and others

(supra), therefore, it does not apply to this case. In the cases of

Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar and

others, Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial. Vs. Jamshed Alam and

others, Muhammad Khan Junejo. Vs. Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary, M/o Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs

and others, Allah Dino Khan Bhayo. Vs. Election Commission of

Pakistan, Islamabad and others, Abdul Ghafoor Lehri. Vs.

Returning Officer, PB-29, Naseerabad-II and others, Muhammad

Siddique and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan, Sadiq Ali

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 250
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Memon Vs. Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-1 and others,

Mian Najeeb-ud-Din Owasi and another Vs. Amir Yar Waran and

another, Mudassar Qayyum Nahra Vs. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and others,

Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan Vs. Muhammad Ajmal and another,

Haji Nasir Mehmood Vs. Mian Imran Masood and others,

Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar Vs. Chief Election

Commissioner, Islamabad and others, Muhammad Rizwan Gill

Vs. Nadia Aziz and others, Muhammad Siddique Baloch Vs.

Jehangir Khan Tareen, Rai Hassan Nawaz Vs. Haji Muhammad

Ayub and another and Ishaq Khan Khakwani Vs. Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (supra) this Court proceeded to disqualify

a good number of persons under Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(1)(c) of the

Constitution where the facts constituting such disqualification were

proved and admitted on the record. The judgments rendered in the

cases of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar Vs. Chief Election

Commissioner, Islamabad and others, Muhammad Yasin Vs.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment

Division Islamabad and others, Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and

others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, Watan Party and

another Vs. Federation of Pakistan and another and Muhammad

Azhar Siddique and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and

others (supra) cited by learned ASC appearing in C.P. No. 03 of 2017

too are not applicable to the case in hand when the decisions in the

said cases were based on undisputed material on the record. The case

of Workers Party Pakistan through Akhtar Hussain Advocate,

General Secretary and 6 others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and

two others (supra) dealing with different questions has no

perceptible relevance to the case in hand. We, therefore, have no

hesitation to hold that a question of this nature in the absence of an

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 251
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

undisputed evidence cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

16. The second question in the seriatim is whether

respondent No. 1 or any of his dependents or benamidars owns,

possesses or has acquired any assets or pecuniary resources

disproportionate to his known means of income? The learned ASCs for

the petitioners in their efforts to persuade us to answer this question in

affirmative referred to a number of documents showing the

establishment of Gulf Steel Mill at Dubai, its sale, establishment of

Azizia Steel Mill at Jeddah, its sale and incorporation of Nescol Limited

and Neilson Enterprises Limited in British Virgin Islands. Under the veil

of the aforesaid companies, respondent No. 1 has been alleged to have

acquired flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A at Avenfield House Park Lane

London. The personal information form dated 14.10.2011 purportedly

issued by Minerva Trust and Corporate Services Limited shows

respondent No. 6 as the beneficial owner of the flats. This document

has been purportedly signed by the said respondent, but she disputed

its genuineness and even her signatures thereon. Another document

showing respondent No. 6 as the beneficial owner of the flats is the

alleged correspondence between Mr. Errol George, Director FIA, British

Virgin Islands and Money Laundering Reporting Officer of Mossack

Fonseca & Co. (B.V.I.) Limited. A photocopy of an extract from the

clients register of Director, Minerva Trust and Corporate Services

Limited, according to the learned ASC for the petitioner, is yet another

document proving respondent No. 6 as the beneficial owner of the

flats. In any case, the questions how did Gulf Steel Mill come into

being; what led to its sale; where did go its sale proceeds; how did they

reach Jeddah, Qatar and the U.K.; whether respondents No. 6, 7 and 8

in view of their tender ages had the means in the early nineties to

purchase the flats; whether sudden appearance of letters of Hamad Bin

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 252
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is a myth or a reality; how bearer shares

crystallized into the flats; how did Hill Metal Establishment come into

existence; where did the money for Flagship Investment Limited and

where did its Working Capital Fund come from and where did the huge

sums running into millions gifted by respondent No. 7 to respondent

No. 1 drop in clamor for answers to be found by the investigation

agency and then by the Accountability Court established under the

National Accountability Bureau Ordinance.

17. The third question requiring consideration of this Court is

what a person is required to do under the Constitution and the law and

whether Articles 62, 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the

Representation of People Act require any member of Parliament to

account for his assets or those of his dependents if they are

disproportionate to his known means of income and whether his failure

to account for such assets could call for his disqualification. Before we

answer this question it is worthwhile to refer to Articles 4, 62 and 63 of

the Constitution and Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act

which read as under:

4. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in

accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen.
Wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time
being within Pakistan.---

(2) In particular

(a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body,

reputation or property of any person shall be taken
except in accordance with law;

(b) no person shall be prevented from or be

hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law;
and

(c) no person shall be compelled to do that which

the law does not required him to do.

62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament).(l) A person shall not be qualified to be
elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament) unless

(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 253
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than
twenty- five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any
-electoral roll in

(i) any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a

seat reserved for a non-Muslims; and

(ii) any area in a Province from which she seeks membership

for election to a seat reserved for women.

(c) he is, in the case of the Senate, not less than thirty years
of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or,
as the case may be, the Federal Capital or the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership;

(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as

one who violates Islamic Injunctions;

(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and

practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as well
abstains from major sins;

(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and

ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court
of law; and

(g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked

against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology
of Pakistan:

(2) The disqualifications specified in paragraphs (d) and (e)

shall not apply to a person who is a non-Muslim, but such a
person shall have good moral reputation.]

63. Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-

Shoora (Parliament).

(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or

chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament), if

(a) he is of unsound mind and has been so declared by a

competent court; or

(b) he is an undischarged insolvent; or

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the

citizenship of a foreign State; or

(d) he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan

other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its
holder; or

(e) he is in the service of any statutory body or any body

which is owned or controlled by the Government or in which
the Government has a controlling share or interest; or

(f) being a citizen of Pakistan by virtue of section 14B of the

Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (II of 1951), he is for the time
being disqualified under any law in force in Azad Jammu and
Kashmir from being elected as a member of the Legislative
Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; or

(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
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 254
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, 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; or

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; or

i) he has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or

service of a corporation or office set up or, controlled, by the
Federal Government, Provincial Government or a Local
Government on the ground of misconduct, unless a period of
five years has elapsed since his dismissal; or

j) he has been removed or compulsorily retired from the

service of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up
or controlled by the Federal Government, Provincial
Government or a Local Government on the ground of
misconduct, unless a period of three years has elapsed since
his removal or compulsory retirement; or

k) he has been in the service of Pakistan or of any statutory

body or any body which is owned or controlled by the
Government or in which the Government has a controlling
share or interest, unless a period of two years has elapsed
since he ceased to be in such service; or

(l) he, whether by himself or by any person or body of

persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account or
as a member of a Hindu undivided family, has any share or
interest in a contract, not being a contract between a
cooperative society and Government, for the supply of goods
to, or for the execution of any contract or for the
performance of any service undertaken by, Government:

Provided that the disqualification under this paragraph shall

not apply to a person

(i) where the share or interest in the contract devolves on

him by inheritance or succession or as a legatee, executor or
administrator, until the expiration of six months after it has
so devolved on him;

(ii) where the contract has been entered into by or on behalf

of a public company as defined in the Companies Ordinance,
1984 (XL VII of 1984), of which he is a shareholder but is not
a director holding an office of profit under the company; or

(iii) where he is a member of a Hindu undivided family and

the contract has been entered into by any other member of
that family in the course of carrying on a separate business
in which he has no share or interest;

Explanation.-In this Article goods does not include

agricultural produce or commodity grown or produced by him
or such goods as he is, under any directive of Government or
any law for the time being in force, under a duty or obligation
supply; or

(m) he holds any office of profit in the service of Pakistan

other than the following offices, namely:

(i) an office which is not whole time office remunerated

either by salary or by fee;
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 255
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(ii) the office of Lumbardar, whether called by this or any

other title;

(iii) the Qaumi Razakars;

(iv) any office the holder whereof, by virtue of such office, is

liable to be called up for military training or military service
under any law providing for the constitution or raising of a
Force; or

(n) he has obtained a loan for an amount of two million

rupees or more, from any bank, financial institution,
cooperative society or cooperative body in his own name or
in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents, which
remains unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or
has got such loan written off; or

(o) he or his spouse or any of his dependents has defaulted

in payment of government dues and utility expenses,
including telephone, electricity, gas and water charges in
excess of ten thousand rupees, for over six months, at the
time of filing his nomination papers; or

(p) he is for the time being disqualified from being elected or

chosen as a member of a Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of
Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being inforce.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this paragraph law shall

not include an Ordinance promulgated under Article 89 or
Article 128.

(2) If any question arises whether a member of the Majlis-e-

Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a
member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman
shall, unless he decides that no such question has arisen,
refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty
days and if he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall
be deemed to have been referred to the Election
Commission. .

(3) The Election Commission shall decide the question within

ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received
and if it is of the opinion that the member has become
disqualified, he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall
become vacant.

AND

99. Qualifications and disqualifications.(1)A person shall

not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of an
Assembly unless

(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;

[(b) he is, in the case of National Assembly, not less than

twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any
electoral roll:

(i) in any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat and

minority seat;

and

(ii) in a Province, from where such person seeks membership

for election to a seat reserved for women];
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 256
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(c) he is, in the case of Provincial Assembly, not less than

twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any
electoral roll [as a voter in any area in a Province from where
he seeks membership for ] that Assembly;

[(cc) xxxxxxx]

(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as

one who violates Islamic Injunctions ;

(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and

practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as
abstains from major sins ;

(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest

and ameen ;

(g) he has not been convicted for a crime involving moral

turpitude or for giving false evidence; and

(h) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked

against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology
of Pakistan: Provided that the disqualifications specified in
clauses (d) and (e) shall not apply to a person who is a non-
Muslim, but such a person shall have good moral reputation.

(IA) A person shall be disqualified from being elected as, and

from being, a member of an Assembly, if

(a) he is of unsound mind and has been so declared by a

competent court; or

(b) he is an un-discharged insolvent; or

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the

citizenship of a foreign State; or

(d) he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other

than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder; or

(e) he is in the service of any statutory body or any body

which is owned or controlled by the Government or in which
the Government has a controlling share or interest; or

(f) being a citizen of Pakistan by virtue of section 14B of the

Pakistan Citizenship Act,1951(11 of 1951),he is for the time
being disqualified under any law in force in Azad Jammu and
Kashmir from being elected as a member of the Legislative
Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; or

(g) he is 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, or

[(h) has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction

on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of
power or authority under any law for the time being in force;
or

(i) has been dismissed from the service of Pakistan or service

of a corporation or office set up or controlled by the Federal
Government, Provincial Government or a local government
on grounds of misconduct or moral turpitude; or
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 257
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(j) has been removed or compulsorily retired from the service

of Pakistan or service of a corporation or office set up or
controlled by the Federal Government, Provincial
Government or a local government on grounds of misconduct
or moral turpitude; or ]

(k) he has been in the service of Pakistan or of any statutory

body or any body which is owned or controlled by the
Government or in which the Government has a controlling
share or interest, unless a period of two years has elapsed
since he ceased to be in such service; or

(l) he is found guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice under any

law for the time being in force, unless a period of five years
has elapsed from the date on which that order takes effect;
or

[(m) Omitted.

(n) he, whether by himself or by any person or body of

persons in trust for him or for his benefit or on his account or
as a member of a Hindu undivided family has any share or
interest in a contract, not being a contract between a
cooperative society and Government, for the supply of goods
to, or for the execution of any contract or for the
performance of any service undertaken by, Government:

Provided that the disqualification under this clause shall not

apply to a person---

(i) where the share or interest in the contract devolves on

him by inheritance or succession or as a legatee, executor or
administrator, until the expiration of six months after it has
so devolved on him;

(ii) where the contract has been entered into by or on behalf

of a public company as defined in the Companies
Ordinance,1984 (XLV II of 1984),of which he is a shareholder
but is not a director holding an office of profit under the
company; or

(iii) where he is a member of a Hindu undivided family and

the contract has been entered into by any other member of
that family in the course of carrying on a separate business
in which he has no share or interest; or

Explanation.-In this section goods does not include

agricultural produce or commodity grown or produced by him
or such goods as he is, under any directive of Government or
any law for the time being in force, under a duty or obligation
to supply;

(o) he holds any office of profit in the service of Pakistan

other than the following offices, namely:

(i) an office which is not whole time office remunerated either

by salary or by fee;

(ii) the office of Lumbardar, whether called by this or any

other title;.

(iii) the Qaumi Razakars;

(iv) any office the holder whereof, by virtue of such office, is

liable to be called up for military training or military service
under any law providing for the constitution or raising of a
Force; or
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 258
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(p) having, whether by himself or by any person in trust for

him or for his benefit or on his account, any share or interest
in a contract for

(i) the supply of goods to, or

(ii) the execution of any work, or the performance of any

service, undertaken by, the Government, or a local authority
or an autonomous body in which the Government has a
controlling share or interest, he does not, after his election as
a member but within thirty days of his making oath as such
make a declaration in writing to the Commission that he has
such share or interest, unless a period of five years has
elapsed since his failure to do so; or

(q) being a managing agent, manager or secretary of, or

holding any other office carrying the right to remuneration in,
any company or corporation (other than a cooperative
society)in the capital of which the Government has not less
than twenty-five per cent share or which is managed by the
Government, he does not, after his election as a member but
within thirty days of his making oath as such, make a
declaration in writing to the Commissioner that he is such
managing agent, manager or secretary, or holds such office,
unless a period of five years has elapsed since his failure to
do so; or

[(r) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for

having absconded by a competent court under any law for
the time being in force; or

(s) has obtained a loan for an amount of two million rupees or

more, from any bank, financial institution, cooperative
society or cooperative body in his own name or in the name
of his spouse or any of his dependents, which remains unpaid
for more than one year from the due date, or has had such
loan written off; or

(t) he or his spouse or any of his dependents is in default in

payment of government dues or utility expenses, including
telephone, electricity, gas and water charges of an amount in
excess of ten thousand rupees, for over six months, at the
time of filing of nomination papers of such person.]

Explanation l.-In this sub-section, service of Pakistan has the

same meaning as in Article 260.

(2) Omitted].

A reading of Article 4 of the Constitution would reveal that no

person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require

him to do. While a reading of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and

Section 99 of the ROPA would reveal that none of them requires any

member of Parliament to account for his assets or those of his

dependents even if they are disproportionate to his known means of

income. Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA requires him to disclose his assets

and those of his spouse and dependents and not the means whereby
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 259
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

such assets are acquired. Where none of the provisions of the

Constitution or the Act dealing with disqualifications requires a

member of Parliament to account for his assets and those of his

dependents, even if they are disproportionate to his known means of

income, how could this Court on its own or on a petition of any person

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution require him to do that, and

declare that he is not honest and ameen if he does not account for

such assets. Given Section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance requires him to

account for his assets and those of his dependents and benamidars if

they are disproportionate to his known means of income in a trial

before an Accountability Court but not in a proceeding under Article

184(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, failure of respondent No. 1 to do

that which he is not required by law to do would not be of any

consequence. It, thus, cannot call for his disqualification at least at this

stage.

18. The fifth question focuses on the liability of a holder of

public office if he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns,

possesses or has acquired right or title in any assets or pecuniary

resources disproportionate to his known means of income which he

cannot account for. The answer is provided by Sections 9(a)(v), 10 and

15 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance which read as

under:-

S.9... Corruption and Corrupt Practices: (a) A

holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to
commit or to have committed the offence of corruption
and corrupt practices:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv) .
v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidars
owns, possesses, or has [acquired] right or title in any
[assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in
respect of any assets] or pecuniary resources
disproportionate to his known sources of income, which
he cannot [reasonably] account for [or maintains a
standard of living beyond that which is commensurate
with his sources of income].
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 260
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

10. Punishment for corruption and corrupt

practices.--(a) [A holder of public office or any other
person] who commits the offence of corruption and
corrupt practices shall be punishable with [rigorous]
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14
years, [and with fine] and such of the assets and
[pecuniary sources] of such [holder of public office or
person as are] found to be disproportionate to the
known sources of his income or which are acquired by
money obtained through corruption and corrupt
practices whether in his name or in the name of any of
his dependents, or benamidars shall be [***] forfeited
to the appropriate government, [or the concerned
bank or financial institution as the case maybe].

[(b) The offences specified in the Schedule to this

Ordinance shall be punishable in the manner specified
therein.

(c) The Federal Government may, by notification in

the official Gazette, amend the Schedule so as to add
any entry thereto or modify or omit any entry therein.

(d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in any other law for the time being in force
an accused, convicted by the Courts of an offence
under this Ordinance, shall not be entitled to any
remission in his sentence.]

15. Disqualification to contest elections [or to

hold public office]:-- (a) [Where an accused person is
convicted [of an offence under Section 9 of this
Ordinance], he shall forthwith cease to hold public,
office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand
disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned
from the date he is released after serving the
sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen,
appointed or nominated as a member or
representative of any public body or any statutory or
local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any
Province :

Provided that any accused person who has availed the

benefit of [sub-section (b) of Section] 25 shall also be
deemed to have been convicted for an offence under
this Ordinance, and shall forthwith cease to hold public
office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand
disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned
from the date he has discharged his liabilities relating
to the matter or transaction in issue, for seeking or
from being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as
a member or representative of any public body or any
statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan or
of any Province.]

(b) Any person convicted of an offence [under Section

9 of the Ordinance] shall not be allowed to apply for or
be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the
form of any loan or advances [or other financial
accommodation by] any Bank or Financial Institution
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 261
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

[owned or controlled by Government], for a period of

10 years from the date of conviction.

Any liability arising out of these Sections has its own trappings.

Any allegation leveled against a holder of public office under these

provisions of law requires an investigation and collection of evidence

showing that he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns,

possesses or has acquired assets etc disproportionate to his known

means of income. Such investigation is followed by a full-fledged trial

before an Accountability Court for determination of such liability. But

where neither the Investigation Agency investigated the case, nor any

of the witnesses has been examined and cross-examined in an

Accountability Court nor any of the documents incriminating the

person accused has been produced and proved in accordance with the

requirements of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, nor any oral or

documentary pieces of evidence incriminating the person accused has

been sifted, no verdict disqualifying a holder of public office could be

given by this Court in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution on the basis of a record which is yet to be authenticated.

We must draw a line of distinction between the scope of jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and that of the

Accountability Court under the Ordinance and between the

disqualifications envisioned by Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution

and Section 99 of the ROPA and the criminal liabilities envisioned by

Sections 9, 10 and 15 of the Ordinance lest we condemn any member

of Parliament on assumptions by defying the requirements of a fair trial

and due process. We cannot make a hotchpotch of the Constitution and

the law by reading Sections 9 and 15 of the Ordinance in Articles 62,

63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the Act and pass a judgment in

a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution which could well

be passed by an Accountability Court after a full-fledged trial. Nor

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 262
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

could we lift Sections 9 and 15 of the Ordinance, graft them onto

Article 63 of the Constitution, construe them disqualifications and

proceed to declare that the member of Parliament so proceeded

against is not honest and ameen and as such is liable to be

disqualified. A verdict of this nature would not only be unjust but coram

non judice for want of jurisdiction and lawful authority. If a person is

sought to be proceeded against under Section 9(a)(v) and 15 of the

NAB Ordinance resort could be had to the mode, mechanism and

machinery provided thereunder. Let the law, the Investigation Agency

and the Accountability Court and other Courts in the hierarchy take

their own course. Let respondent No. 1 go through all the phases of

investigation, trial and appeal. We would not leap over such phases in

gross violation of Article 25 of the Constitution which is the heart and

the soul of the rule of law. We also dont feel inclined to arrogate to

ourselves a power or exercise a jurisdiction which has not been

conferred on us by any of the acts of the Parliament or even by Article

184(3) of the Constitution. Who does not know that making of a

statement on oath in a trial lends it an element of solemnity; cross-

examination provides safeguards against insinuation of falsehood in

the testimony; provisions of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order regulate

relevancy of facts, admissibility of evidence and mode of proof through

oral and documentary evidence and thus ensure due process of law.

We for an individual case would not dispense with due process and

thereby undo, obliterate and annihilate our jurisprudence which we

built up in centuries in our sweat, in our toil, in our blood.

19. Yes, the officers at the peak of NAB and FIA may not cast

their prying eyes on the misdeeds and lay their arresting hands on the

shoulders of the elites on account of their being amenable to the

influence of the latter or because of their being beholden to the

persons calling the shots in the matters of their appointment posting

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 263
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and transfer. But it does not mean that this Court should exercise a

jurisdiction not conferred on it and act in derogation of the provisions

of the Constitution and the law regulating trichotomy of power and

conferment of jurisdiction on the courts of law. Any deviation from the

recognized course would be a recipe for chaos. Having seen a

deviation of such type, tomorrow, an Accountability Court could

exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and a

trigger happy investigation officer while investigating the case could do

away with the life of an accused if convinced that the latter is guilty of

a heinous crime and that his trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction

might result in delay or denial of justice. Courts of law decide the cases

on the basis of the facts admitted or established on the record.

Surmises and speculations have no place in the administration of

justice. Any departure from such course, however well-intentioned it

may be, would be a precursor of doom and disaster for the society. It

as such would not be a solution to the problem nor would it be a step

forward. It would indeed be a giant stride nay a long leap backward.

The solution lies not in bypassing but in activating the institutions by

having recourse to Article 190 of the Constitution. Political excitement,

political adventure or even popular sentiments real or contrived may

drive any or many to an aberrant course but we have to go by the law

and the book. Let us stay and act within the parameters of the

Constitution and the law as they stand, till the time they are changed

or altered through an amendment therein.

20. The next question emerging for the consideration of this

Court is what are the fora provided by the Constitution and the law to

deal with the questions emerging from Articles 62(1)(f) and 63(2) of

the Constitution. To answer this question we will have to fall back upon

Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. A careful reading of the said

Articles would reveal that the one deals with qualifications of a person
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 264
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to be elected or chosen as a member of Parliament while the other

deals with disqualifications of a person not only from being elected or

chosen but also from being a member of Parliament. If a candidate is

not qualified or is disqualified from being elected or chosen as a

member of Parliament in terms of Articles 62 and 63 of the

Constitution, his nomination could be rejected by the Returning Officer

or any other forum functioning in the hierarchy. But where the returned

candidate was not, on the nomination day, qualified for or disqualified

from being elected or chosen as a member, his election could be

declared void by the Election Tribunal constituted under Article 225 of

the Constitution. While election of a member whose disqualification

was overlooked, illegally condoned or went unquestioned on the

nomination day before the Returning Officer or before the Election

Tribunal, could still be challenged under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) or Article

184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as was held in the cases of

Lt. Col. Farzand Ali and others. Vs. Province of West Pakistan

through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government

of West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD 1970 SC 98) and Syed Mehmood

Akhtar Naqvi. Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary

Law and others (PLD 2012 S.C. 1054). However, disqualifications

envisaged by Article 62(1)(f) and Article 63(2) of the Constitution in

view of words used therein have to be dealt with differently. In the

former case the Returning Officer or any other fora in the hierarchy

would not reject the nomination of a person from being elected as a

member of Parliament unless a court of law has given a declaration

that he is not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen.

Even the Election Tribunal, unless it itself proceeds to give the requisite

declaration on the basis of the material before it, would not disqualify

the returned candidate where no declaration, as mentioned above, has

been given by a court of law. The expression a court of law has not
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 265
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been defined in Article 62 or any other provision of the Constitution but

it essentially means a court of plenary jurisdiction, which has the

power to record evidence and give a declaration on the basis of the

evidence so recorded. Such a court would include a court exercising

original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases.

But in any case a court or a forum lacking plenary jurisdiction cannot

decide questions of this nature at least when disputed. In the latter

case when any question arises whether a member of Parliament

has become disqualified it shall be dealt with only by the Election

Commission on a reference from the Speaker of the Parliament in

terms of Article 63(2) and 63(3) of the Constitution. (Emphasis

supplied). We would have sent this case to the Speaker in terms of

63(2) or the Election Commission in terms of Article 63(3) of the

Constitution but we do not think a question of such nature has arisen in

this case as respondent No. 1 has been alleged to be disqualified even

on the nomination day on account of having failed to disclose his

assets and those of his dependents.

21. Now we take up the question whether a case for

disqualification of respondent No. 1 in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution is spelt out by the speeches he delivered inside and

outside the Parliament and whether such speeches in view of the

provisions contained in Article 66 of the Constitution could be used to

his detriment. The case of the petitioners is that speeches delivered by

respondent No. 1 inside and outside the Parliament are false because

of their being in conflict with the statements of respondents No. 7 and

8 and contradictory to his own stance taken in his concise statement

and that the privilege in terms of Article 66 of the Constitution is not

available to him when the matter addressed in his speech delivered in

the Parliament was essentially personal. But mere contradiction

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 266
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

between the speeches of respondent No. 1 and statements of

respondents No. 7 and 8 does not prove any of his speeches false or

untrue unless it is determined after examining and cross-examining

both of them that their statements are correct and true. Where it is not

determined that statements of respondents No. 7 and 8 are correct and

true, no falsity could be attributed to the speeches of respondent No.

1. If at all, the speeches of respondent No. 1 are sought to be used to

incriminate him for declaring that he is not honest and ameen, he has

to be confronted therewith. Where no effort was made to prove the

statements of respondents No. 7 and 8 to be true and correct, nor was

respondent No. 1 confronted with his speeches, it would be against the

cannons of law of evidence to use such speeches against him. Once we

hold that neither of the speeches of respondent No. 1 could be used

against him, the question of availability of privilege under Article 66 of

the Constitution shall become irrelevant.

22. Many other arguments have been addressed and many

other judgments have been cited at the bar by the learned ASCs for

the petitioners as well as the respondents but as we have held above

that the allegations leveled against respondent No. 1 require

investigation by the investigation agency and determination by an

Accountability Court, we need not comment on them at this stage lest

it prejudices the case of any of the parties.

23. Having thus considered we sum up the case as under:

no aboveboard or undisputed documentary evidence has been brought

on the record to show that respondent No. 1 defaulted in the payment

of tax as far as his assets as declared in the tax returns are concerned;

nothing significant has come forth against respondents No. 9 and 10 as

could justify the issuance of the direction asked for. However, sufficient

material, as highlighted in para 16 above, has surfaced on the record

which prima facie shows that respondent No. 1, his dependents and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 267
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

benamidars acquired assets in the early nineties and thereafter which

being disproportionate to his known means of income call for a

thorough investigation. In the normal circumstances this job could well

be done by NAB, but when its Chairman, in view of his conduct he has

demonstrated in Hudaibyas case by not filing an appeal against a split

verdict of the Lahore High Court, appears to be indifferent and even

unwilling to perform his part, we are constrained to constitute a joint

investigation team (JIT) which would consist of the following members:

i) a senior Officer of the Federal Investigation

Agency (FIA), not below the rank of Additional
Director General who shall head the team
having firsthand experience of investigation of
white collar crime and related matters;
ii) a representative of the National Accountability
Bureau (NAB);

iii) a nominee of the Security & Exchange

Commission of Pakistan (SECP) familiar with the
issues of money laundering and white collar
crimes;

iv) a nominee of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP);

v) a seasoned Officer of Inter Services Intelligence

(ISI) nominated by its Director General; and

vi) a seasoned Officer of Military Intelligence (M.I.)

nominated by its Director General.

24. The Heads of the aforesaid departments/ institutions shall

recommend the names of their nominees for the JIT within seven days

from today which shall be placed before us in chambers for nomination

and approval. The JIT shall investigate the case and collect evidence, if

any, showing that respondent No. 1 or any of his dependents or

benamidars owns, possesses or has acquired assets or any interest

therein disproportionate to his known means of income. Respondents

No. 1, 7 and 8 are directed to appear and associate themselves with

the JIT as and when required. The JIT may also examine the evidence

and material, if any, already available with the FIA and NAB relating to

or having any nexus with the possession or acquisition of the aforesaid

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 268
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

flats or any other assets or pecuniary resources and their origin. The JIT

shall submit its periodical reports every two weeks before a Bench of

this Court constituted in this behalf. The JIT shall complete the

investigation and submit its final report before the said Bench within a

period of sixty days from the date of its constitution. The Bench

thereupon may pass appropriate orders in exercise of its powers under

Articles 184(3), 187(2) and 190 of the Constitution including an order

for filing a reference against respondent No. 1 and any other person

having nexus with the crime if justified on the basis of the material

thus brought on the record before it.

25. It is further held that upon receipt of the reports, periodic

or final of the JIT, as the case may be, the matter of disqualification of

respondent No. 1 shall be considered and appropriate orders, in this

behalf, be passed, if so required.

26. We would request the Honble Chief Justice to constitute a

Special Bench to ensure implementation of this judgment so that the

investigation into the allegations may not be left in a blind alley.

JUDGE
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 269
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Gulzar Ahmed, J. I have read the proposed judgment

authored by my learned brother Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J. and

observe that his lordship in his usual way has very elaborately

and eloquently dealt with all the matters and points raised

during hearing of these Constitution Petitions and has given a

very able and well reasoned judgment to which I agree. I,

however, wish to add my own note dealing with singular point

which in my estimation is the most crucial and much central to

all the questions which have been raised during the course of

arguments before us.

2. I may, at the outset, clarify and emphasize that this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution has all the jurisdiction to

give any sort of declaration and to pass any consequential order

that may be the need of the case which may arise out of any of

the given facts and circumstances. In this regard, this Court has

given its judgments time and again in which this matter has

specifically been dealt with and answered to which I will be

making reference and discussing them herein below.

3. What is the nature of jurisdiction that has been conferred

upon this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter called the

Constitution). Such Article is reproduced as follows:-

184(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of

Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 270
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that a question of public importance with reference

to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II is involved, have
the power to make an order of the nature mentioned
in the said Article.

On reading of this very Article, it is clear that this Court has been

conferred with a power to make an order of nature mentioned in

Article 199 of the Constitution and such power is without

prejudice to the said Article meaning that this Court is not

constrained with any of the technicalities or any of the conditions

that may have been imposed on the High Court for exercising

jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. This Court has

been given free and unbridled powers to make an order of a

nature, as mentioned above, if it considers that the question of

public importance with reference to enforcement of any of the

Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II of the

Constitution is involved. In the case of Shahid Pervaiz & others

v Ejaz Ahmad & others [2017 SCMR 206], this Court has held

that where any of the provisions of law made by the Parliament

or otherwise comes in direct conflict with the Fundamental

Rights of the citizen conferred by Chapter 1 Part II of the

Constitution, the same can be declared as non-est. In the case

of Lahore Bachao Tehrik v Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan &

others [2015 SCMR 1520] this Court has held that the rules of

acquiescence, waiver, estoppels and past and closed transaction

or any other rule having nexus to such concepts would not at all

be relevant when this Court is exercising jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution. In the case of Anjum Aqeel

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 271
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Khan & others v National Police Foundation through M.D & others

[2015 SCMR 1348], while considering power of the Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau, this Court observed that under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution it has very wide and vast

powers and if the Court considers that a question of public

importance with reference to the enforcement of the

Fundamental Rights conferred by the Constitution was involved it

has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. In the case of Ali

Azhar Khan Baloch & others v Province of Sindh & others [2015

SCMR 456], this Court has observed that in order to exercise

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, requirement

of the Constitution is that this Court has to consider that

question of public importance with reference to enforcement of

Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 Part II of the

Constitution is involved, it has jurisdiction to pass appropriate

orders notwithstanding that there might be an alternate remedy.

Observing that the word consider being related to the

subjective assessment of this Court and this Court is the final

authority upon the matter affecting judicial determination on the

scope of constitutional provisions thus once the Supreme Court

arrived at a conclusion that the question of public importance,

having nexus with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the

Constitution, has been raised the exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution cannot be objected to

either by the Government or by any other party. This Court , in

the case of Khalid Iqbal & 2 others v Mirza Khan & others [PLD
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 272
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2015 Supreme Court 50] has observed that power of the

Supreme Court to revisit its earlier decision or depart from it and

while dealing with the scope stated that the Constitution did not

impose any restriction or bar on the Supreme Court to revisit its

earlier decisions or even to depart from them nor the doctrine of

stare decisis would come in its way so long as revisiting of the

judgment was warranted in view of the significant impact of the

Fundamental Rights of the citizen or in the interest of public

good. This Court has absolute powers to revisit, review or set

aside its earlier judgments and orders by invoking its suo motu

jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 187 or 188 of the Constitution

and that for exercising such inherent jurisdiction, the Court is

not dependent upon an application being made by a party. In

the case of Jamshoro Joint Venture Limitted & others v Khawaja

Muhammad Asif & others [2014 SCMR 1858], this Court has held

that under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the scope of

powers of the Court is that suit pending before a Court

containing a matter raised in the Constitution Petition this Court

has held as follows:

This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article

184(3) of the Constitution has ample power to
adjudicate upon and consider the question of public
importance with reference to the enforcement of any
of the Fundamental Rights conferred by the
Constitution and the jurisdiction of this Court will not
be fettered or restricted merely for the reason that
some suit is pending on any of the questions
involved in the matter for that would be of
subordinate consideration when dealing with the
question of public importance with reference to the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights which
are of supreme importance and have a much wider
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 273
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

connotation and implication to the public at large.

In the case of Asaf Fasihuddin Khan Vardag v Government of

Pakistan & others [2014 SCMR 676], while dealing with the

question of appointments made by the Government without

adverting to the merits, this Court has observed that under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution it has wide powers to ensure

that acts, actions of other organs of the State namely executive,

legislature did not breach the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by

the Constitution under the principle of trichotomy of powers, the

judiciary was entrusted with the responsibility of enforcement of

Fundamental Rights which called for independent and vigilant

system of judicial administration so that all acts and actions

leading to infringement of Fundamental Rights were nullified and

the rule of law was upheld in the society. In Human Rights case

No.14392 of 2013 etc [2014 SCMR 220], this Court exercising

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on

newspaper clipping regarding unprecedented load-shedding in

the country and increase in electricity prices, lack of availability

of gas for production of electricity, gas load management policy

of the Government, priority of supply of gas to different sectors,

supply of gas to fertilizer companies on subsidized rates in bulk,

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution gave directions to the

Government for regularizing supply of gas etc. In the case of

Abdul Wahab & others v HBL & others [2013 SCMR 1383], this

Court has dealt with the scope under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution and held that the restraints, constraints and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 274
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

limitations, if any, in Article 199 of the Constitution might not

stricto sensu be attracted to the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in view of the

expression without prejudice appearing at the very opening of

Article 184(3) meaning thereby without any detriment (i.e.

without being harmed or damaged or hurt). However, the

Supreme Court has the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the

rules for the purposes of regulating its own jurisdiction and apply

to rules of restraints besides Article 184(3) of the Constitution

itself has its own limitations and conditions which are that matter

before the Supreme Court should be for the enforcement of any

of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 Part-II of the

Constitution and the question involved should be of public

importance and that they are sine qua non i.e. both conditions

must be first established and the case must be established by

the petitioner in the case and shown to co-exist before enabling

the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in terms of Article 184(3) of

the Constitution. In the case of Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch &

others v Government of Balochistan through Secretary

Industries & Mineral Development & others [PLD 2013 Supreme

Court 641], this Court dealt with the matter of Cooper and Gold

reserves in Reko Diq area of the Province of Balochistan and

examined the Joint Venture Exploration agreement between the

Provincial Development Authority and respondent company and

highlighted irregularities and illegalities committed in the

execution of said agreement and on grounds including non-

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 275
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

transparency, violation of law/rules considered as curtailment of

the Fundamental Rights of the general public and thus was

declared illegal, void and non-est and the very exploration

licence was also held to be non-est. In the case of Air Marshal

(Retd) Muhammad Asghar Khan v General (Retd) Mirza Aslam

Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff & others [PLD 2013 Supreme

Court 1], this Court was dealing with a Human Rights case under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution concerning creation of an

Election Cell in the Presidency with the aid of Chief of Army Staff

and officials of intelligence agencies to provide financial

assistance from public exchequer to favoured candidates or a

group of political parties to achieve desired results in the

elections held in the year 1990. Looking at the seriousness of

the case and its implication affecting the Fundamental Rights of

the citizen and question of public importance, it was registered

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The Court, after

elaborate hearing of the case passed its judgment making the

following declaration :-

(1) That citizens of Pakistan as a matter of right

are free to elect their representatives in an
election process being conducted honestly,
justly, fairly and in accordance with law.

(2) The general election held in the year 1990 was

subjected to corruption and corrupt practices
as in view of the overwhelming material
produced by the parties during hearing it has
been established that an Election Cell had
been created in the Presidency, which was
functioning to provide financial assistance to
the favoured candidates, or a group of political
parties to achieve desired result by polluting
election process and to deprive the people of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 276
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Pakistan from being represented by their

chosen representatives.

(3) A President of Pakistan, in Parliamentary

system of government, being head of the State
represents the unity of the Republic under
Article 41 of the Constitution. And as per the
oath of his office in all circumstances, he will
do right to all manner of people, according to
law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
Thus, holder of office of President of Pakistan,
violates the Constitution, if he fails to treat all
manner of people equally and without
favouring any set, according to law, and as
such, creates/provides an occasion which may
lead to an action against him under the
Constitution and the Law.

(4) The President of Pakistan, Chief of Army Staff,

DG ISI or their subordinates certainly are not
supposed to create an Election Cell or to
support a political party/group of political
parties, because if they do so, the citizens
would fail to elect their representatives in an
honest, fair and free process of election, and
their actions would negate the constitutional
mandate on the subject.

(5) However, in the instant case it has been

established that in the general elections of
1990 an Election Cell was established in the
Presidency to influence the elections and was
aided by General Mirza Aslam Beg, who was
the Chief of Army Staff and by General Asad
Durrani, the then Director General ISI and
they participated in the unlawful activities of
the Election Cell in violation of the
responsibilities of the Army and ISI as
institution which is an act of individuals but nor
of institutions represented by them
respectively, noted hereinabove.

(6) ISI or MI may perform their duties as per the

laws to safeguard the borders of Pakistan or to
provide civil aid to the Federal Government,
but such organizations have no role to play in
the political activities/politics, for formulation
or destabilization of political Governments, nor
can they facilitate or show favour to a political
party or group of political parties or politicians
individually, in any manner, which may lead in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 277
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

his or their success.

(7) It has also been established that the Ghulam

Ishaq Khan, the then President of Pakistan
with the support of General Aslam Beg,
General Asad Durrani and others, who were
serving in M.I. and now either have passed
away or have retired, were supporting the
functioning of the Election Cell, established
illegally.

(8) Mr. M. Yunus A. Habib, the then Chief

Executive of Habib Bank Ltd. at the direction
and behest of above noted functionaries,
arranged/provided Rs.140 million belonging to
public exchequer, out of which an amount of
Rs.60 million was distributed to politicians,
whose incomplete details have been furnished
by General Asad Durrani, however, without
a thorough probe no adverse order can be
passed against them in these proceedings.

(9) The Armed Forces of Pakistan, under the

directions of Federal Government, defend
Pakistan against external aggression or threat
of war and, subject to law, are to act in aid of
civil power when called upon to do so under
Article 245 of the Constitution, thus, any
extra-constitutional act, calls for action in
accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan
and the law against the officers/officials of
Armed Forces without any discrimination.

(10) The Armed Forces have always sacrificed their

lives for the country to defend any external or
internal aggression for which it being an
institution is deeply respected by the nation.

(11) The Armed Forces, in discharge of their

functions, seek intelligence and support from
ISI, MI, etc., and on account of security
threats to the country on its frontiers or to
control internal situations in aid of civil power
when called upon to do so. However, ISI, MI
or any other Agency like IB have no role to
play in the political affairs of the country such
as formation or destabilization of government,
or interfere in the holding of honest, free and
fair elections by Election Commission of
Pakistan. Involvement of the officer/members
of secret agencies i.e. ISI, MI, IB, etc in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 278
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

unlawful activities, individually or collectively

calls for strict action being, violative of oath of
their offices, and if involved, they are liable to
be dealt with under the Constitution and the
Law.

(12) Any election Cell/Political Cell in Presidency or

ISI or MI or within their formations shall be
abolished immediately and any
letter/notification to the extent of creating any
such Cell/Department (by any name
whatsoever, explained herein, shall stand
cancelled forthwith.

(13) Late Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then President of

Pakistan, General Aslam Beg and General
Asad Durrani acted in violation of the
Constitution by facilitating a group of
politicians and political parties, etc., to ensure
their success against the rival candidates in
the general election of 1990, for which they
secured funds from Mr. Yunus Habib. Their
acts have brought a bad name to Pakistan and
its Armed Forces as well as secret agencies in
the eyes of the nation, therefore,
notwithstanding that they may have retired
from service, the Federal Government shall
take necessary steps under the Constitution
and Law against them.

(14) Similarly, legal proceedings shall be initiated

against the politicians, who allegedly have
received donations to spend on election
campaigns in the general election of 1990,
therefore, transparent investigation on the
criminal side shall be initiated by the FIA
against all of them and if sufficient evidence is
collected, they shall be sent up to face the
trial, according to law.

Mr. Yunus Habib shall also be dealt with in the

same manner.

(15) Proceedings shall also be launched against the

persons specified hereinabove for affecting the
recovery of sums received by them with profit
thereon by initiating civil proceedings,
according to law.

(16) An amount of Rs.80 million, statedly, has been

deposited in Account No.313 titled Survey and
Construction Group Karachi, maintained by MI,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 279
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

therefore, this amount with profit shall be

transferred to Habib Bank Ltd. if the liability of
HBL has not been adjusted so far, otherwise,
the same may be deposited in the treasury
account of Government of Pakistan.

This Court also exercised jurisdiction in the matter of Law &

Order situation in the Province of Balochistan. In the case of

President Balochistan High Court Bar Association v Federation of

Pakistan & others [2012 SCMR 1958], held that the Constitution

Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is maintainable

and passed the declaration. This Court also in the case of

Muhammad Yasin v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,

Establishment Division, Islamabad & others [PLD 2012 Supreme

Court 132] took up the question of appointment of Chairman

OGRA and by exercising power under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution, declared such appointment being a question of

public importance with reference to the enforcement of

Fundamental Rights to be void ab initio. In Suo Motu Case

No.18 of 2010 [PLD 2011 Supreme Court 927], Suo Motu action

has been taken by the Court regarding violation of Public

Procurement Rules, 2004 and the matter related to investigation

of a corruption case of huge amount of money of people of

Pakistan and held that jurisdiction to control investigation of

criminal case and the reason offered in support of the contention

that such a control over the investigation of criminal case by the

Supreme Court could be prejudicial to the accused. The Court

held that approach of a Court of law while dealing with the

criminal matter had to be dynamic keeping in view the facts and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 280
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

circumstances of each case and also the surrounding situation

prevailing in the country and it would be a felonious and

unconscionable on the part of the Supreme Court if it had

refused to intervene to defend the Fundamental Rights of such a

large section of the public and leaving it only to the concerned

officials who had done nothing at all in the matter for almost

two years and who had remained only silent spectators of entire

drama and had only witnessed the escape of the accused

persons to foreign lands, it was to check and cater for such kind

of gross negligence, nonfeasance and malfeasance that the

framers of the Constitution had obligated the High Court under

Article 199 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution to intervene in the matters

exercising their power to review the administrative and executive

actions. In the case of Watan Party & another v Federation of

Pakistan & others [PLD 2011 Supreme Court 997], it was held

that Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article

184(3) of the Constitution, which is in the nature of inquisitorial

proceedings, has the same powers as are available to the High

Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and it is not

dependent only at the instance of the aggrieved party in the

context of adversarial proceedings while dealing with the case

Court is neither bound by the procedural trapping of Article 199

nor by limitations mentioned in the said Article. In Suo Motu

Case No.24 of 2010 [PLD 2011 Supreme Court 963], this Court

while considering Hajj Corruption case observed that power

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 281
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

under Article 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution is categorized

as power of judicial review. Every executive or administrative

action of the State or other statutory or public bodies is open to

judicial scrutiny and the Court in exercise of power of judicial

review under the Constitution quashed the executive action or

decision which is contrary to law or is violative of Fundamental

Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and further observed that

with the expanding horizon of Articles of the Constitution dealing

with Fundamental Rights, every executive action of the

government or other public bodies, if arbitrary, unreasonable or

contrary to law is now amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the

superior Courts and can be validly scrutinized on the touchstone

of the Constitutional mandate. In the case of Bank of Punjab &

another v Haris Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd & others [PLD 2010

Supreme Court 1109], while dealing with financial fraud with

innocent people, this Court while examining Article 184(3) of the

Constitution, observed that the matter in present case related to

one of the gravest financial scams in the banking history of

Pakistan as a result of which the bank stood cheated of an

enormous amount of around eleven billion rupees which amount

of money in fact belonged to around one million innocent

depositors holding small amounts of money whose life savings

and property had come under serious threat causing thus an

obligation on the Supreme Court to move into to protect and

defend the rights of such large population. In Suo Motu Case

No.10 of 2007 [PLD 2008 Supreme Court 673], this Court held
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 282
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that in exercise of its power under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution it was not supposed to interfere in the policy

decisions of administrative nature and to control the

administrative affairs of the government but the interference of

the Supreme Court in the matters relating to breach and

enforcement of Fundamental Rights of people at large scale was

always justified and must not act in departure to the settled

principles of judicial norms or in the aid of administrative policy

of executive authority or as social reformer rather must confine

itself within the domain of law and mandate of the Constitution.

Failure of the Government to have proper control on the prices

particularly of articles of daily use and essential commodities

related to enforcement of Fundamental Rights of the people and

of public importance, responsibilities of the Government in that

behalf were identified. In the case of Pakistan Muslim League

(N) through Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA & others v

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior &

others [PLD 2007 Supreme Court 642], it was observed that

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain petition under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution in the matters relating to

disputed questions of facts which do not required voluminous

evidence can be looked into where Fundamental Rights have

been breached. However, where disputed questions of fact

involving voluminous evidence are involved, the Supreme Court

will desist from entering into such controversies. In the case of

Wattan Party through President v Federation of Pakistan through

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 283
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Cabinet Committee of Privatization, Islamabad & others [PLD

2006 Supreme Court 697], which was a case of Privatization of

Pakistan Steel Mills Limited, a Government owned industry and it

was observed that cases arising out of public interest litigation

shall not be covered under Section 28 of the Privatization

Commission Ordinance, 2000 for in such cases Court has been

called upon to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of

the information laid before it that the matter involves question of

public importance relating to the Fundamental Rights, individual

or collective, and for such like litigation Section 28 provides no

remedy for redresssal of their grievance. Vires of Privatization

Commission Ordinance, 2000 having been challenged in the

present case, it would not be fair to compel the petitioner to

avail the remedy under the same law as the High Court within its

limited jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Ordinance cannot

strike down any of the provisions of the said Ordinance and

petitioner having raised issues of great public importance falling

within the constitutional domain of the Supreme Court which

could not have been adequately addressed to by the High Court

in terms of Section 28 of the Ordinance and ultimately what the

Court held was that the process of privatizing of Pakistan Steel

Mills was not in accordance with law and thus set-aside the

same. In the case of Moulvi Iqbal Haider v Capital Development

Authority & others [PLD 2006 Supreme Court 394], which is a

case of conversion of public park into commercial park by the

CDA in violation of Fundamental Rights involving question of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 284
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

public importance. In the case of Javed Jabbar & 14 others v

Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 2003 Supreme Court 955],

this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution declared Article 8AA of the Conduct of General

Elections Order, 2002 providing disqualification from being

Member of the Senate, as violative of the provisions of Article 25

of the Constitution and was struck down. In the case of Sardar

Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari & others v Federation of Pakistan &

others [PLD 1999 Supreme Court 57], where Petitions under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution were filed in which, inter alia,

Article 233(1) and 233(2) of the Constitution suspending

enforcement of Fundamental Rights were challenged. This

Court, after considering all relevant issues including the material

placed before it concluded that the Presidents Order dated

28.05.1998 suspending Fundamental Rights under clause (2) of

Article 233 of the Constitution and further Order dated

13.07.1998 under the same clause and Article of the

Constitution were not justified and were declared to be without

lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the elections matters

also this Court has entertained Petitions under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution and has considered the material placed before it

by the parties and thereafter proceeded to pass declaration.

4. Having considered the vast variety of subject on which this

Court has exercised jurisdiction and gave declarations and

directions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the facts and

circumstances of the present case need to be examined and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 285
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

considered as to whether they are sufficient and comprise of

enough material where this Court can proceed to make an order

in terms of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

5. In all the above three Constitution Petitions, Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, sitting Prime Minister of Pakistan who

is also an elected Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan

has been made respondent. The central allegation made in the

three Constitution Petitions relates to four London Flats and it is

alleged that these Flats were purchased by incorporating

offshore companies by the name of Nescoll Limited and Nielsen

Enterprises Limited and in the following manner:

Flat No.17, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London

was registered in the name of Nescoll, British
Virgin Island Company in June 1992;

Flats No.16 & 16A, Avenfield House, Park Lane,

London were registered in the name of Nielsen, a
British Virgin Island Company on 31.07.1995;

Flat No.17A, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London

was registered in the name of Nescoll, British
Virgin Island Company on 23.07.1996.

That these companies being in the ownership of Hussain Nawaz

Sharif who was a minor at the time of acquiring all these

properties by these companies, they belong to Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif and he has altogether failed to make a declaration

of these properties in his income tax returns, so also in the

declaration of assets submitted to the Election Commission of

Pakistan. It is further asserted that Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif as a Prime Minister of Pakistan has made two speeches;

one to the Nation dated 05.04.2016 and the other which was a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 286
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

written speech in the National Assembly on 16.05.2016 and in

both these speeches Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif did not

disown these properties rather in his speech on the floor of the

House has categorically admitted the ownership of the four

London Flats but altogether failed to disclose the source of funds

from which these four London Flats were purchased. It is

alleged that in his two speeches Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

has lied to the Nation and on the floor of the House in that he

has asserted that these four London Flats were purchased from

the funds generated out of sale of Gulf Steel Mills, Dubai and Al-

Azizia Steel Mills, Jeddah; out of which the Gulf Steel Mills was

sold in the year 1980 while Al-Azizia Steel Mills was sold in the

year 2005 whereas the four London Flats were purchased during

1992 to 1996. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, as respondent in

the three Constitution Petitions, has filed his own replies. In

Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016, he filed concise statement

by way of CMA No.7244 of 2016 and has denied ownership (legal

or beneficial) of four London Flats No.16, 16A, 17 & 17A and has

also denied ownership (legal or beneficial) of any offshore

entities and that his name does not appear in the Panama Papers

nor any accusation has been made against him in the said

Papers. He has asserted that he is a regular tax payer and files

his returns as well as wealth tax statements in accordance with

the provisions of applicable law and entire income, assets and

liabilities of his are declared. He has also stated that the entire

income, assets and liabilities of his as well as of his spouse are

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 287
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

duly declared in the nomination form of General Elections 2013

as well as in the statement of assets and liabilities filed with the

Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and none of his children is

dependant nor any of them has been declared to be a dependant

on him and that he fulfills the requirements of Article 62 and 63

of the Constitution and is fully compliant with his obligation of

declaration of assets and liabilities within the provision of ROPA.

He has further asserted that for grant of relief prayed in the

petition there are pre-conditions that a valid, final and binding

declaration has to be made by a competent Court in respect of

the allegations leveled in the petition and such determination,

declaration requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and no such

proceedings before the competent Court has been initiated nor

there exist any valid or final binding declaration. He has further

asserted that post election qualification in terms of Article 63(2)

has to be referred to the ECP by the Speaker of National

Assembly and that no such reference has been filed by the

petitioner nor any reference to ECP has been made and that

reference(s) filed by Member of PTI and others has been

rejected by the Speaker of the National Assembly. It was further

asserted that pre-election qualification, as provided in Article

62(1)(f) of the Constitution after a Member of Parliament has

been elected and notified, such election can only be challenged

by way of an Election Petition under Article 225 of the

Constitution. The allegations as to the facts stated in the

petitions were denied. He has also filed separate concise

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 288
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

statements in Constitution Petition No.30 of 2016 by way of CMA

No.7245 of 2016 & CMA No.908 of 2017 as well as in

Constitution Petition No.3 of 2017 by way of CMA No.433 of

2017, which replies are more or less similar to the one as filed in

Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016.

6. The submission of Syed Naeem Bokhari, the learned ASC

for the petitioner in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 before

this Court was that pursuant to the issuance of Panama Papers

by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

(ICIJ) and various interviews given by Mariam Safdar, Hussain

Nawaz Sharif and Hassan Nawaz Sharif and the two speeches of

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif himself in unequivocal terms

establish that the four London Flats were owned, possessed and

are being in use of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family

members since 1992 but Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif himself

did not disclose the real facts about the ownership of four

London Flats rather has contradicted himself in that in his speech

to the Nation dated 05.04.2016 so also on the floor of National

Assembly dated 16.05.2016 while admitting the fact of

ownership of four London Flats, he still when called upon by this

Court to make response to the allegations made against him

about such ownership, has merely chosen the path of making a

barefaced denial. He contended that such conduct of Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif who not only is a Member of the

National Assembly of Pakistan but also the sitting Prime Minister

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 289
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of Pakistan is unbecoming for a person holding such high Public

Office and it establishes that he is not Honest and Ameen in

terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and is accordingly

required to be adjudged and declared by this Court and removed

from office. He contended that the people of Pakistan has the

Fundamental Right to know true facts about their Members of

National Assembly and also Prime Minister regarding four London

Flats which is also question of great public importance with

reference to enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

7. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad appearing for himself in

Constitution Petition No.30 of 2016, M/s Taufeeq Asif, learned

ASC and Sh. Ahsanuddin, learned ASC for the petitioner in

Constitution Petition No.3 of 2017 referred to the material filed

before the Court and contended that the material so placed is

sufficient to establish that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is not

Honest and Ameen in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution and is liable to be removed from office.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Senior

ASC for Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in his arguments has

confined himself to same line as is adopted in the concise

statements of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif that of denial of

ownership of four London Flats and offshore companies. Mr.

Shahid Hamid, learned Senior ASC and Mr. Salman Akram Raja,

learned ASC for the remaining private respondents have in their

arguments contended that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 290
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

nothing to do with four London Flats and the two offshore

companies. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan appearing

for the Federation conceded that the Court has power to make

order as sought by the petitioners in the Constitution Petitions

but contended that such power be not exercised as it is likely to

affect pending proceeding in Tribunal so also the elections of

other Parliamentarians. He further contended that no rights of

the petitioners have been violated and no case for relief claimed

in the three Constitution Petitions is made out.

9. Admitted facts appear on the record are that after the

nationalization of the Ittefaq Foundary in the year 1972 it is the

case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif himself that his father

Mian Muhammad Sharif had proceeded to Dubai where he has

established Gulf Steel Mills and 75% of the shares of Gulf Steel

Mills were sold in the year 1978 through tripartite share sale

contract in which the first party was Muhammad Abdullah Kaid

Ahli, a UAE national as Buyer; second party Muhammad Tariq

Shafi, a Pakistani national as Seller; and third party Bank of

Credit & Commerce International (BCCI), Deira Dubai as a

Creditor of the second party. Pursuant to this contract

Muhammad Tariq Shafi as the owner of Gulf Steel Mills factory

sold to the first party 75% share of the factory for a total

consideration of Dirhams 21,375,000/- the whole of this amount

was paid to the third party i.e. BCCI in payment of liability of

Gulf Steel Mills. The remaining liabilities of Gulf Steel Mills

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 291
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

towards BCCI Dirhams 6,289,589/-, Dubai Electricity Company

Dirhams 2,852,659/- and Dubai Water Supply were taken over

exclusively by Muhammad Tariq Shafi, as his own liabilities. The

name of Gulf Steel Mills was changed to that of Ahli Steel Mills

Company and a partnership agreement was made in the year

1978 where Ahli Steel Mills Company was formed with a capital

of Dirham 28,500,000/- of which 75% share was of Muhammad

Abdullah Kaid Ahli and the remaining 25% share was of

Muhammad Tariq Shafi. The distribution of the capital of Ahli

Steel Mills Company, comes as follows:

Muhammad Abdullah Kaid Ahli, 75% = Dirhams

21,375,000/-
Muhammad Tariq Shafi, 25% = Dirhams 7,125,000/-

It is obvious that 75% share reflecting payment of Dirhams

21,375,000/- which Muhammad Abdulllah Kaid Ahli made to

BCCI for purchasing of 75% share of Gulf Steel Mills. Thus while

Muhammad Tariq Shafi owned 25% share in Ahli Steel Mills

Company amounting to Dirhams 7,125,000/- he also had with

him the liabilities towards payment of remaining Gulf Steel Mills

dues to BCCI, Dubai Electric Company and Dubai Water Supply.

Apparently where liabilities of Gulf Steel Mills and the share of

Muhammad Tariq Shafi in Ahli Steel Mills Company are put

together, the share of Muhammad Tariq Shafi will come to NIL

amount. However, on selling of 25% shares of Ahli Steel Mills

Company by Muhammad Tariq Shafi to Muhammad Abdullah Kaid

Ahli vide agreement dated 14.04.1980 it is alleged that it has

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 292
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

generated Dirhams 12 million which are said to have been paid

in installments over a period of six months from 15.05.1980. It

is really intriguing and almost a mystery as to how in the first

place the 25% shares of Dirhams 7,125,000/- in the year 1978

appreciated to Dirhams 12 million. Nothing on the record to

show that capital value of Ahli Steel Mills Company had increased

and further what happened to the liabilities of Gulf Steel Mills

taken over by Muhammad Tariq Shafi. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, in

his interview dated 07.03.2016 to Express News in Program Kal

Tak, has said that Mian Muhammad Sharif when he came from

Jati Umra was penniless and when Hussain Nawaz Sharif himself

went to Saudi Arabia he did not had much treasure with him but

had two sources of funds i.e. by way of loan from foreign friends

and the loan from Saudi Banks from which a small mill was

established for which he himself purchased scrape of Ahli Steel

Mills on very low price as the owner of Mills was thinking that

this will never be sold as it has become scrape and this scrape

was reconditioned at Jeddah and the very fact that Ahli Steel

Mills was lying closed and has become scrape negates the fact

that its capital value had increased to make 25% shares in the

amount of Dirhams 12 million.

10. On termination of the ownership of Gulf Steel Mills and

sale of its remaining 25% shares in 1980 there is lull in between

of almost 21 years, when in 2001 Al-Azizia Steel Mills is said to

have been established in Jeddah. It was asserted by Hussain

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 293
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Nawaz Sharif in his interview dated 07.03.2016 that he had no

treasure when he came to Saudi Arabia and no funds were

available, he has drawn on two sources; one that of foreign

friends from whom loans were obtained and secondly the loans

obtained from Saudi Banks for establishing Al-Azizia Steel Mills.

Now, as the case has been put up before the Court, there was a

treasure trove of Dirhams 12 million available to Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family but why this treasure

trove was not tapped, it could be inferred and inferred well that

it did not exist. Be that as it may, admittedly Al-Azizia Steel Mills

was sold in the year 2005 for an amount of US$17 million. What

happened to its own loans and how they were paid, nothing is

said about them. It may be relevant here to mention as a fact

that Hussain Nawaz Sharif, the first son of Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif was born on 01.05.1972 and the daughter Mariam

Safdar on 28.10.1973 while Hassan Nawaz Sharif the other son

was born on 21.01.1976. It is obvious from these dates of their

birth that when Gulf Steel Mills was established none of the

above named three children was major. At the best Hussain

Nawaz Sharif the eldest son must be a suckling child yet again

when 75% shares of Gulf Steel Mills were sold and thereafter in

1980 the remaining 25% shares were sold still all the three

above named children were minors and of tender ages. It is

admitted that Hussain Nawaz Sharif went to London in 1992 for

the purpose of his education while Hassan Nawaz Sharif went to

London in 1993/94 for his education purpose. It is admitted that

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 294
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

both the sons of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif had occupied the

London Flats while they were purely students. Photocopy of

Certificate of Incorporation of Nescoll Limited has been filed by

respondents No.6 to 8 with CMA No.7531 of 2016 which is dated

27.01.1993 and of Nielsen Enterprises Limited is dated

04.08.1994. The land registry shows the ownership of four

London Flats as follows:-

Flat No.16, 31.07.1995, Proprietor Nielsen

Enterprises Limited;

Flat No.16A, 31.07.1995, Proprietor Nielsen

Enterprises Limited;

Flat No.17, 01.06.1993, Proprietor Nescoll

Limited;

Flat No.17A, 23.07.996, Proprietor Nescoll

Limited.

11. During the course of arguments, it was contended by Mr.

Shahid Hamid, learned Senior ASC so also by Mr. Salman Akram

Raja, learned ASC that both Nescoll and Nielsen have issued one

Bearer Certificate each of US$ 1 each and custodian of these

Bearer Share Certificate was the owner of the two companies

and owner of the properties comprised of four London Flats. In

this respect the Nescoll Limited is issued Bearer Certificate No.1,

number of shares 1 par value of US$1 dated 29.04.1993, a

photocopy of which has been filed at page 69 of CMA No.7531 of

2016 filed by Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Senior ASC

for respondents No.6 to 8. At page 65 of this very CMA, there is

Bearer Certificate No.1, number of shares 1 par value of US$1

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 295
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

dated 22.11.1994 issued in respect of Nielsen Enterprises

Limited. It was contended by the learned ASC for the

respondents that these were the only Bearer Share Certificates

issued by the two companies and their bearer was the owner of

the two companies so also the owner of four London Flats. In

this very CMA it was claimed that both these Bearer Share

Certificates were cancelled and registered shares were issued i.e.

two shares of Nescoll Limited Share Certificate No.2, number of

share 1 of US$1 dated 04.07.2006 issued to Minerva Nominees

Limited and Share Certificate Number 3, number of share 1 of

US$1 dated 04.07.2006 to Minerva Services Limited. Yet again

two shares of Nescoll Limited of US$1 each are issued to

Trustees Services Corporation on 09.06.2014. As regards

Nielsen Enterprises Limited Share Certificate No.2, number of

share 1 of US$ 1 was issued to Minerva Nominees Limited on

04.07.2006 and Certificate No.3, number of share 1 of US$1 was

issued to Minerva Services Limited on 04.07.2006. Two shares

of Nielsen Enterprises Limited of US$ 1 each are issued to

Trustee Services Corporation on 09.01.2014. It is worth to point

out here that there existed one Bearer Share Certificate each of

the two companies, however, in 2006, each of the company is

shown to have two share certificates each registered in the name

of companies, noted above. This anomaly of increase in the

number of shares of the two companies is not explained.

Further, I find that the Bearer Share Certificates of the two

companies separately mentioned authorized capital of each of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 296
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the company to be US$ 50,000 divided into 50,000 shares of par

value US$1 each. No record is made available on the basis of

which it can be ascertained as to what number of shares in each

of the company were issued either bearer or registered. The

Bearer Share Certificate of Nescoll Limited is dated 29.04.1993

while that of Nielsen Enterprises Limited is dated 22.01.1994

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family does not claim that

these Bearer Share Certificates were in their custody from their

respective dates. Prince Al-Thani of Qatar, in his two

statements, has not said that the Bearer Share Certificates of

the two companies were in the custody of Al-Thani family or that

of himself. So from 1993/94 to 2006 nobody has come before

us claiming custody of two Bearer Share Certificates. What does

this mean? It cannot, however, be said that the two Bearer

Share Certificates of the two companies were not in the custody

of someone. Who that someone could be? Overall circumstance

leads only to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family who

are in possession and occupation of the four London Flats from

the dates of Bearer Share Certificates and as per their own

admission, are paying rents and all charges of the four London

Flats including that of maintenance. Being in possession and

occupation of the said four London Flats and by paying their

dues and maintaining them like an owner does, it heavily rested

upon Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif to explain in a very clear

and unambiguous terms with supporting material about his and

his family connection with the four London Flats, more so when
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 297
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

he himself from his own mouth stated that he has nothing to

hide and that there are all records available with him. This was

an obligation cast upon him and duty towards the people of

Pakistan, who had Fundamental Right to know about the

standing of their chosen representative and Prime Minister of

Pakistan which is also a question of great public importance. He

when called upon by the highest Court of the country to explain,

what Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif chose was to remain silent

and gave bare statement that he is not owner of the four London

Flats and of the two offshore companies. This evasive attitude of

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, more so before the highest Court

of the country, to me, did not appear to be justified or bonafide

rather its purpose appears to throw the Court in altogether a

dark alley where it is left groping without realizing that this very

act of his will cast a substantial shadow upon him, more so when

the Court is considering the very question of his being Honest

and Ameen in holding office of the Member of National Assembly

and the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

12. The people of Pakistan have a Fundamental Right under

the Constitution to know about the standing of their chosen

representative and the Prime Minister vis--vis his connection

with the four London Flats which has so much been highlighted

in the print and electronic media not only in Pakistan but all over

the world. The Prime Minister of Iceland was named in the

Panama Paper Leaks so also the Spanish Industry Minister and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 298
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Prime Minister of Ukraine, they all have resigned from their

offices owing to such leaks. The British Prime Minister so also

the President of Russian Federation, who were named in Panama

Paper Leaks, have stated their positions and got themselves

cleared. Against many other functionaries of the World, matters

on the basis of Panama Paper Leaks are stated to be pending.

Such major scandalous news needed a careful and very

thoughtful consideration and to me, Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif ought to have given all details regarding the ownership of

four London Flats, more so when the same being in his own

personal knowledge as he has claimed to have purchased the

four London Flats. I, however, note with dismay that Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif did not make a clean breast and

provided nothing to the Court where it could have fairly

concluded that yes Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif had nothing

to do with these four London Flats.

13. The principle of pleading is that the written statement

must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint

and when the defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so

evasively but answer the point with substance and in case denial

of fact is not specific but evasive, the fact shall be taken to be

admitted. This is the most general and well entrenched legal

principle of pleading in our jurisdiction and the reference in this

regard may be made to the cases of Karachi Metropolitan

Corporation, Karachi & another v. Raheel Ghayas & 3 others

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 299
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

[PLD 2002 Supreme Court 446]; Secretary to Government (West

Pakistan) now NWFP Department of Agriculture and Forests,

Peshawar & 4 others v Kazi Abdul Kafil [PLD 1978 Supreme

Court 242] and Muhammad Akhtar v Mst. Manna & 3 others

[2001 SCMR 1700]. In his speech dated 16.05.2016 Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has claimed that four London Flats

were purchased from the funds made available from sale of Gulf

Steel Mills and Al-Azizia Steel Mills but admitted material placed

before us altogether give a different story regarding the source

of funds for the purchase of four London Flats. Prince Al-Thani of

Qatar in his two private statements has no where stated that the

four London Flats were in fact purchased by Al-Thani family and

that the Bearer Share Certificates of Nescoll and Nielsen were in

the custody of Al-Thani family. No particulars in this respect are

available in the two statements as to on what date these four

London Flats were purchased, for what consideration amount

and from whom they were purchased. It is also not in his two

private statements as to how and by what mode and means

consideration amount of four London Flats was paid. Not a shred

of bank papers is available on record in this respect. In this

backdrop, the scenario unfolds before us is that:

(i) Who formed and got the two companies i.e.

Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises
Limited incorporated is not known;

(ii) Who had the custody of two Bearer Share

Certificates of Nescoll Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises Limited from the date of their
incorporation and issue is not known;
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 300
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(iii) There is total vacuum of ownership of the two

companies namely Nescoll Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises Limited from the day they were
formed upto the day of their Bearer Share
Certificates are stated to have been given to
Hussain Nawaz Sharif in the year 2006;

(iv) The Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises

Limited, the owner of four London Flats, the
very ownership of these London Flats from the
period they were acquired by Nescoll Limited
and Nielsen Enterprises Limited upto the years
2006 also remained in vacuum.

This scenario, as has unfolded before us, obviously cannot be

believed. The central reason for it is that the four London Flats

remained in possession and occupation of Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif and his family since the year 1992/93 and all this

time they have been paying their rent and all other dues and

charges so also maintaining them and all such things were being

done as the owner does towards his property. While the four

London Flats remained in possession and occupation of Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family, Managers/Agents of the

two companies namely Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises

Limited were changed and successive companies were appointed

for maintaining the four London Flats. Who did this, it remained

unexplained by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.

14. Another glaring circumstance that connects Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and his family with the four London

Flats in the year 1999, is the order dated 05.11.1999 of the High

Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, London in the Suit filed

by Al-Towfeek Company for Investment Funds Limited against

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 301
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited, Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif,

Mian Muhammad Sharif and Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif by

which to secure the payment of decretal amount of US$34

million, the Court charged the four London Flats to the extent of

the interest in the said asset of Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif,

Mian Muhammad Sharif and Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif. It is

admitted that the liability under the decree of Al-Towfeek

Company was discharged by the defendants and the charge on

these four London Flats was got vacated but available record

does not show remittance or payment of US$34 million to Al-

Towfeek Company. Further the defendants never before the

High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, London raised plea

of they having no interest in the four London Flats charged nor

any other person or entity seems to have filed objection in Court

claiming ownership of the four London Flats.

15. The other important circumstance is the conduct of Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif himself on the publication of Panama

Paper Leaks, he himself felt compelled to come up with his own

version about the four London Flats. On close examination of his

two speeches first dated 05.04.2016 to the Nation and the other

dated 16.05.2016 on the floor of National Assembly, he has not

disowned the ownership of the four London Flats by him and his

family rather in categorical terms has admitted of having

acquired/ purchased the four London Flats albeit from sources of

sale of Gulf Steel Mills, Dubai and Al-Azizia Steel Mills, Jeddah.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 302
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Had he or his family nothing to do with the four London Flats,

there would have been no occasion for him to appear and give

response to it. Yet another fact that seems to be established on

record is the very interview of Hassan Nawaz Sharif to Tim

Sebastian in BBC program Hard Talk where the interviewer/

anchor asked him a direct question that does he know who owns

the flats he is living in, his answer to this question was that it is

not the question right now. Again he was asked by the

interviewer that does he know who owns the flats he lives in, he

again answered by saying I am not the right person to ask that.

These were total evasive replies and one can imagine as to why

and for what reason and on what account such evasiveness has

been displayed. He could not have been so innocent or naive as

not to know the owner of the Flats in which he has been

continuously living for almost more than six years. The

innocence has its limits. He could have named the owner of the

four London Flats but he chose not to do so. Even when he was

specifically asked that the London Flats are illegally bought by

his father, he chose not to deny but again replied evasively.

Hussain Nawaz Sharif, in his interview dated 07.03.2016 in

Program Kal Tak at Express News stated that he has three

offshore companies in London and he has also categorically

stated that London Flats are his properties; Nescoll and Nielsen

companies own those Flats and he is the owner of Nescoll and

Nielsen. In this very interview, he has neither given the date on

which he become owner of the three companies and the four

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 303
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

London Flats nor did he mention about the source of funds from

which these properties were acquired by him and how he paid

them. No income purported to be generated from businesses of

Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Hassan Nawaz Sharif has been

brought on record. One document of Aldar Audit Bureau dated

19.01.2017 addressed to Hussain Nawaz Sharif as the owner of

Hill Metals Establishment Jeddah has been filed at page 133 of

CMA No.432 of 2017 by Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned ASC.

With this letter is attached a summary showing net profit after

tax of Hill Metals Establishment in the years 2010 to 2014.

Apart from this letter, no other record has been made available

to the Court regarding Hill Metals Establishment and it is even

not disclosed as to when Hill Metals was established and from

what funds and what business it was doing. Even the certificate

showing registration of Hill Metals Establishment is not filed. The

figures, as per letter has been traced and it is not stated that as

to from where and from what sources they have been traced.

No bank document showing the financial transactions of Hill

Metals Establishment has been placed on record. This very

letter, therefore, does not establish anything. Hussain Nawaz

Sharif in his interview dated 07.03.2016 in Program Kal Tak has

specifically stated as follows:

"








"
This statement of Hussain Nawaz Sharif is altogether

contradictory as they cannot stand together. If Mian Muhammad

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 304
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Nawaz Sharif is not the owner of properties then in Sharia also

he will not own the properties. However, in the second sentence

while asserting that in Sharia all his properties belong to his

father Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif appears to be true fact for

that had it not been true he would have not spoken so, more so

looking at the background of his education i.e. Barrister from

Lincolns Inn since 1996 and also having his own family that of

two wives and children. It may be noted here that none of the

interviews are disputed or denied rather they all are admitted.

16. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Senior ASC for Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has contended that privilege under

Article 248 of the Constitution is not claimed by Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif as Prime Minister of Pakistan rather he claims

privilege of his speech made on floor of the House in terms of

Article 66 of the Constitution. He has cited many cases to show

that this privilege cannot be abridged or taken away from the

Parliamentarians and the only restriction placed on the

Parliamentarian is provided under Articles 68 and 204 of the

Constitution. To the extent the submission of the learned Senior

ASC for Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif goes there cannot be any

cavil, however, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif time and again

stated that he will not claim any privilege in this matter. Even in

his concise statement while referring to speech in the

Parliament, he himself has relied upon his speech on floor of the

House and did not out rightly claim privilege. However, I am not
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 305
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

altogether basing my note on mere speech of Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif on the floor of the House.

17. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Senior ASC for Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has vociferously argued that standard

of proof which was actually required for proving qualifications for

membership of Majlis-e-Shoora after 18 th amendment was

substantially raised and it is not the same as is applicable to

ordinary cases. Mr. Taufeeq Asif, learned ASC however

contended that standard of proof was not raised but remained

ordinary. The provision of Article 62 of the Constitution, prior to

18th amendment was as follows:

62. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-

Shoora (Parliament),- A person shall not be
qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-
(a)
.
(b)
.
(c)
.
(d)
.
(e)
.
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate
and honest and ameen;

The provision of Article 62 of the Constitution, after 18 th

amendment is as follows:

62(1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected

or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament) unless-
(a)
.
(b)
.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 306
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(c)
.
(d)
.
(e)
.
(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate,
honest and ameen, there being no declaration
to the contrary by a court of law.

The difference that has been made in clause (f) of this Article

after 18th amendment is the addition of words there being no

declaration to the contrary by a Court of law. This only means

that the qualification of candidate of Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) under clause (f) previous to the 18 th amendment

was capable of being challenged without any hurdle in that the

challenger only had to establish that the candidate is not

sagacious, righteous, non-profligate and honest and ameen.

However, after 18th amendment this open ended provision was

circumscribed by addition that there being no declaration to the

contrary by a Court of law. It was conceded by Mr. Makhdoom

Ali Khan, learned Senior ASC during the course of arguments

that the Supreme Court is the Court of law and also competent

to give declaration but contended that there has to be a trial by

way of recording evidence before the Court of appropriate

jurisdiction. There may not be two views about this submission

of the learned Senior ASC but at the same time it is also well

established that the question of trial do arise when there are

disputed questions about the given facts and yet again the High

Court under Article 199 of the Constitution so also this Court

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution has ample power to pass

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 307
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

declaration where the matter is based on practically admitted

facts. Although large number of cases have come before this

Court where challenge under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

were adjudicated and determined in the lower forums.

Incidently, a direct Petition under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution was filed before this Court in the case of Syed

Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary Law & others [PLD 2012 Supreme Court 1054] where

the election of Parliamentarian was challenged on the ground of

their having dual citizenship and after elaborate discussion on

the issue this Court passed the declaration as follows:

(a) Ch. Zahid Iqbal, MNA, Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani,

MNA, Mr.Farhat Mehmood Khan, MNA, Mr. Jamil
Ahmad Malik, MNA, Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, MPA
(Punjab), Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Chohan, MPA
(Punjab), Ms. Nadia Gabol, MPA (Sindh), Ch.
Waseem Qadir, MPA (Punjab), Ch. Nadeem Khadim,
MPA(Punjab), Ms. Amna Buttar, MPA (Punjab), Dr.
Ahmad Ali Shah, MPA (Sindh) have been found
disqualified from being members of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament) and Provincial Assemblies because of
their disqualification under Article 63(1)(c) of the
Constitution.

(b) The Parliamentarians/Members of Provincial

Assemblies, who have been declared to be
disqualified, in view of the established fact that they
have acquired the citizenship of Foreign States,
therefore, no question has arisen, which is to be
determined by the Chairman/Speaker. Thus, no
reference under Article 63(2) is being made.

(c) The Election Commission is directed to de-notify

the respective memberships of
Parliament/Assemblies of aforesaid persons.

(d) All the Members of the Parliament/Provincial

Assemblies noted above had made false declarations
before the Election Commission while filing their
nomination papers and as such appear to be guilty
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 308
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of corrupt practice in terms of Section 78 of

Representation of Peoples Act, 1976, therefore, the
Election Commission is directed to institute legal
proceedings against them under section 82 of the
Act read with sections 193, 196, 197, 198 and 199
PPC in accordance with law.

(e) The members of Parliament/Provincial

Assemblies noted hereinabove, being disqualified
persons are directed to refund all monetary benefits
drawn by them for the period during which they
occupied the public office and had drawn their
emoluments etc. from the public exchequer including
monthly remunerations, TA/DA, facilities of
accommodation along with other perks which shall
be calculated in terms of money by the Secretaries
of the Senate, National Assembly and Provincial
Assemblies accordingly.

(f) The amount, so recovered from all of them by

respective Secretaries shall be deposited in the
public exchequer within a period of two weeks and
compliance report shall be sent to the Registrar.

(g) As regards the case of Senator A. Rehman Malik,

it may be noted that at the time of filing of
nomination papers for election to the Senate held in
the year 2008, he had made a false declaration to
the effect that he was not subject to any of the
disqualifications specified in Article 63 of the
Constitution or any other law for the time being in
force for being elected as a member of the
Parliament/Provincial Assembly, therefore, reference
will be required to be made to the Chairman Senate
under Article 63(2) in view of the provision of section
99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976, which lays down that a
person shall not be qualified from being elected or
chosen as a member of an Assembly unless he is
sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest
and ameen. Mr. A. Rahman Malik, in view of the
false declaration filed by him at the time of
contesting the election to the Senate held in the year
2008, wherein he was elected, cannot be considered
sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen within the
contemplation of section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976.
Therefore, for such purposes Article 63(1)(p) is to be
adhered to because the disqualification incurred by
him is
envisaged under the law, referred to hereinabove
in view
of his own statement that he had renounced hi
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 309
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

s citizenshipof UK
whereas the fact remains that such renunciation
along with declaration can only be seen as having
been made on 29-5-2012.

(h) Senator A. Rehman Malik is directed to refund all

monetary benefits drawn by him up to 11-7-2012 for
the period during which he occupied the public office
in the same manner as directed in the case of other
Parliamentarians noted above.

(i) As Mr. A. Rehman Malik had made false

declarations while filing his nomination papers before
the Election Commission in the election held in the
year 2008, therefore, the Election Commission is
directed to institute legal proceedings against him as
it has been directed in the case of above said
parliamentarians.

18. I may also observe here that this Court while dealing with

Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

neither acts as a Civil Court conducting trial of the case nor does

it act as a Criminal Court conducting trial of an accused person in

a criminal offence rather the Court purely decide such

Constitution Petition on matters and facts stated and brought

before this Court purely on the basis of constitutional provision

that being a case of public importance with reference to

enforcement of Fundamental Rights as conferred in Chapter 1

Part II of the Constitution.

19. This being the legal position, Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif against whom in the very Constitution Petitions before us

allegation was made that he and his family own four London

Flats and the sources of acquiring all these properties have not

been declared, to me as is said earlier, there was a duty cast

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 310
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

upon Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif as holder of Public Office to

satisfy this Court and the Nation of the country (which being

their Fundamental Right) about the true facts regarding four

London Flats, which he miserably failed to do so and thus what

emerges is that he has not been Honest and Ameen in terms of

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Being faced with this

scenario, the Court cannot be expected to sit as a toothless body

and become a mere spectator but it has to rise above screen of

technicalities and to give positive verdict for meeting the ends of

justice and also to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of the

people of Pakistan. It is thus declared that Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif has not been Honest and Ameen in terms of Article

62(1)(f) of the Constitution and thus rendered himself

disqualified from holding the office of a Member of National

Assembly of Pakistan and ceasing to be the Prime Minister of

Pakistan. I will accept the three Constitution Petitions to the

above extent.

JUDGE
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 311
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- I have had the privilege of reading the

judgments of my learned brothers Ejaz Afzal Khan and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ. I find

myself, in principle, in agreement with the conclusions drawn in the said

judgments. However, in order to elaborate the reasons, which have prevailed with

me, I have added my following additional note.

2. The instant matter attracted more public interest and media

attention than anyone expected. Some of such attention unfortunately was

contaminated with factually incorrect opinions, legally fallacious concepts and

predicted decisions, which were bounced around on the airwaves every evening.

The temptation to restrain such media coverage and public comments was

resisted. Freedom of expression and press is a right enshrined in Article 19 of the

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and this Court is bound to

defend the same. An open Court is the essence of our Legal System. Restraining

comments on the Court proceedings would perhaps negate the very concept of an

open Court. Being insulted from all criticism, it can do more harm to an

Institution than a little unfair criticism. In the instant cases, strong emotions were

unleashed from both sides of the aisle but this Court cannot allow itself to

succumb to populism and must remain steadfast to its oath. We cannot be tempted

to pronounce a popular decision but must decide all cases in accordance with law

without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

3. Tragically, some of such legal fallacies of the often ill-informed

and misguided public debate penetrated into the Courtroom, hence, it has become

imperative to address the same even at the risk of stating the obvious.

4. Constitution Petitions Nos.29 and 30 of 2016, under Article 184(3)

of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have been variously

filed by the two Members of the National Assembly, who are also the Heads of

their respective Political Parties currently in the Opposition. It has been alleged
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 312
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that in the first week of April, 2016, documents, purportedly the record of a

Panama based Law Firm, Mossack-Fonseca were leaked, released and published

in the International Media, the world over. The said Law Firm was apparently

involved in establishing, structuring and managing Offshore Companies on behalf

of its clients from all over the world, including Pakistan. It is in the above

backdrop, the Petitioners filed the aforesaid two Constitution Petitions.

5. In pith and substance, it is the case of the Petitioners in

Constitution Petitions Nos.29 and 30 of 2016 that, primarily, as per the

information in the public domain, purportedly emanating from the aforesaid leaks,

commonly referred to as the Panama Papers, various assets, properties and

businesses held in the name of Offshore Companies and other entities are, in fact,

owned by Respondent No.1 i.e. the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the members

of his family, including Respondents Nos.6 to 8. It is alleged that such assets have

neither been declared in the Nomination Papers of Respondent No.1 nor the

source of funds for the acquisition thereof disclosed.

6. Initially, the Respondents did not take any objection to the

maintainability of the instant petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

This Court vide its order dated 03.11.2016 passed in Constitution Petition No.29

of 2016 held that the questions raised were of public importance and involved, the

enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The precedent law on the subject as laid

down by this Court was cited and relied upon. However, during the course of the

proceedings, on behalf of the Attorney General for Pakistan, a question was raised

to the effect that there is no issue regarding the enforcement of Fundamental

Rights involved in these proceedings. Furthermore, the learned counsels for

Respondents also contended that disputed questions of facts had emerged, which

could not be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 313
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

7. The foundation of our Constitutional dispensation as is evident

from the Constitutional provisions, more particularly, the opening lines of its

Preamble is that the Sovereignty vests in Almighty Allah and authority is to be

exercised by the people of Pakistan through their chosen representatives. This is

the heart and soul of our Constitution, which is also reflected in Article 17, the

Fundamental Right of Freedom of association. It is an unalienable right of the

people of Pakistan to be governed by and under the authority of their chosen

representatives. A right on which the entire edifice of our Constitutional and Legal

Framework rests. This aspect of the matter in the context of the jurisdiction of the

Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution has been considered in various

judgments of this Court, including the judgment, reported as Air Marshal (Retd)

Muhammad Asghar Khan v. General (Retd) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of

Army Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1), wherein it has been observed, inter alia,

as follows:-

102. Above are the reasons for our short

order of even date whereby the instant petition
was disposed of as under:

The Constitution of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan commands
that it is the will of the people of
Pakistan to establish an order
wherein the State shall exercise its
powers and authority through the
chosen representatives of the
people, wherein the principles of
democracy, freedom, equality,
etc., shall be fully observed, so
that the people of Pakistan may
prosper and attain their rightful
and honoured place amongst the
nations of the world, and make
their full contribution towards
international peace and progress
and happiness of humanity.
People of Pakistan had been
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 314
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

struggling to establish a
parliamentary and democratic
order since long within the
framework of the Constitution and
now they foresee a strong system
which is established by the
passage of time without any threat
and which is subject to the
constitution and rule of law.

2. The essence of this Human

Rights case is based on the
fundamental right of citizens
enshrined in Article 17 of the
Constitution. It raises an
important question of public
importance to enforce the
fundamental rights, inter alia,
noted hereinabove, therefore, in
accordance with the provisions of
Article 184(3) of the Constitution,
jurisdiction has been assumed and
exercised to declare, for the
reasons to be recorded later, as
under:-

(1) That citizens of

Pakistan as a matter of
right are free to elect
their representatives in
an election process
being conducted
honestly, justly, fairly
and in accordance with
law.

8. If the authority is exercised by an alien body i.e. other than the

chosen representatives of the people of Pakistan then will the laws made by some
alien body qualify as law in terms of Article 5 of the Constitution and will the
citizens of the Pakistan be under any legal obligation to obey the same?
9. Thus, to exercise authority on their behalf by their chosen
representatives is the most foundational of all the Constitutional rights of the
people of Pakistan, if a disqualified person, as alleged, usurps such role and
thereafter becomes the Prime Minister surely such right of the people is effected
and is liable to be enforced by this Court. The contentions of the learned Attorney
General for Pakistan to the contrary cannot be accepted and it is reiterated that
these Petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution are maintainable.
10. A close scrutiny of the case of the Petitioners, more particularly, as
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 315
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

is obvious from the contents of Constitution Petitions No.29 & 30 of 2016 and the
prayers made therein reveals that a two pronged attack has been made. On the one
hand, it is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif is disqualified from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora in view
of non-disclosure of the properties i.e. Flats. No 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A, Avenfield
House, Park Lane, London owned by him through his dependent daughter
Maryam Safdar i.e. Respondent No.6, in his Nomination Papers. It is also prayed
that Respondents Nos.9 and 10 are also disqualified from holding such public
office and liable to be prosecuted for abetting the other private Respondents.
11. Furthermore, it is alleged that Respondent No.1 and the other
private Respondents in their various public statements and interviews have neither
honestly nor successfully explained the source of funds for the acquisition of the
properties in question i.e. Flats No.16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A, Avenfield House, Park
Lane, London, hence, are guilty of an offence under Section 9(a)(v) of the
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, hence, they are liable to be
prosecuted and punished thereunder.
12. Disqualification from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora on
account of non-declaration or false declaration of assets and prosecution and
punishment for inability to explain the source of funds for acquisition of such
assets have their genesis in two separate sets of Statutes with different principles
of law involving distinct and separate jurisprudence, hence, intermingling the two
would be illogical, patently illegal and may lead to a gross miscarriage of justice.
13. The elections to the Majlis-e-Shoora, as ordained by the
Constitution are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA). The scheme of the law, includes
financial disclosures with a declaration of assets and liabilities by each candidate.
Such disclosure is critical and failure, in this behalf, has painful consequences.
14. Every candidate for the National Assembly is required to file his
Nomination Papers in terms of Section 12 of ROPA and the relevant provision of
Section 12(2)(f) thereof reads as follows:-
12(2)(f) a statement of his assets and
liabilities and those of his spouse and
dependents on the prescribed form as on the
preceding thirtieth day of June;

15. The Nomination Papers are subjected to scrutiny in terms of

Section 14 of the ROPA and if the financial disclosures, as made, are found to be
false, the Nomination Papers are rejected and the candidate is not permitted to
contest the election, as is obvious from the provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of
ROPA, which reads as under:-
14. Scrutiny.(3) The Returning
Officer may, either of his own motion
or upon any objection, [either by an
elector or] [by any person referred to
in subsection (1),] conduct such
summary enquiry as he may think fit
and may reject nomination paper if
he is satisfied that-

(a)
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 316
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

.;

(b) ...
.;

(c) any provision of section 12 or

section 13 has not been complied with
[or submits any false or incorrect
declaration or statement in any
material particular] ; or

(d) ......
.;.

16. The election of a Returned Candidate can be declared void by the

Election Tribunal under Section 68 of ROPA, if the Returned Candidate has not

correctly disclosed his own assets and liabilities or that of his spouse or

dependants and false statement has been made in this behalf. Such an omission

also constitutes an offence of corrupt practices in terms of Section 78(3) of ROPA

with an exposure to criminal prosecution.

17. In the event of an election dispute, more particularly, after the

election, reaching the Election Tribunal strict procedural requirements have been

prescribed, which are rigorously enforced at the cost of the Election Petitioner.

However, an exception has been made in terms of Section 76A of ROPA, whereby

even if the Election Petitioner is to fail on account of non-fulfillment of the

aforesaid procedural requirements, the Election Tribunal is vested with the

inherent jurisdiction to nullify the election, where, inter alia, a Returned

Candidate has failed to faithfully disclose his assets (or liabilities) of himself, his

spouse or dependents. Section 76A of ROPA is reproduced hereunder for ease of

reference:-

76A. Additional powers of

Election Tribunal.-(1) If an Election
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 317
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Tribunal, on the basis of any material

coming to its knowledge from any
source or information laid before it, is
of the opinion that a returned
candidate was a defaulter of loan,
taxes, government dues or utility
charges, or has submitted a false or
incorrect declaration regarding
payment of loans, taxes, government
dues or utility charges, or has
submitted a false or incorrect
statement of assets and liabilities of
his own, his spouse or his
dependents under section 12, it may,
on its own motion or otherwise, call
upon such candidate to show cause
why his election should not be
declared void and, if it is satisfied
that such candidate is a defaulter or
has submitted false or incorrect
declaration or statement, as
aforesaid, it may, without prejudice to
any order that may be, or has been
made on an election petition, or any
other punishment, penalty or liability
which such candidate may have
incurred under this Act or under any
other law for the time being in force,
make an order

(a) declaring the election of the

returned candidate to be void;
and

(b) declaring any other contesting

candidate to have been duly
elected.

(2) If on examining the material or

information referred to in sub-section
(1), an Election Tribunal finds that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 318
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

there appear reasonable grounds for

believing that a returned candidate is
a defaulter or has submitted a false
or incorrect declaration referred to in
subsection (1) it may, pending
decision of the motion under
subsection (1), direct that the result
of the returned candidate shall not be
published in the official Gazette.

(3) No order under sub-section (1) or

sub-section (2) shall be made unless
the returned candidate is provided an
opportunity of, being heard.]

18. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Representation of

the People Act, 1976 makes it clear and obvious that if a person fails to disclose

any asset owned by him, his spouse or dependent in his Nomination Papers in

terms of Section 12 of ROPA, he exposes himself not only to disqualification but

also prosecution for corrupt practices under Section 78 of ROPA besides any other

liability prescribed by the law.

19. In the aforesaid provisions reference to the source of funds for

acquisition of such undisclosed assets is conspicuous by its absence, hence;

wholly irrelevant. Even, if a delinquent person offers a perfect, legally acceptable

explanation for the source of funds for acquiring the undeclared assets, he cannot

escape the penalty of rejection of his Nomination Papers or annulment of his

election. Such is the law of the land and as has been repeatedly and consistently

interpreted by this Court, including in the judgments, reported as (1) Muhammad

Jamil v. Munawar Khan and others (PLD 2006 SC 24), (2) Khaleefa Muhammad

Munawar Butt and another v. Hafiz Muhammad Jamil Nasir and others (2008

SCMR 504) and (3) Muhammad Ahmad Chatta v. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema and

others (2016 SCMR 763).

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 319
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

20. In all the above cases, the candidates were de-seated for non-

disclosure of assets belonging to them, their spouses or their dependants. No

explanation as to the source of funds for acquisition of such assets was asked for,

offered, accepted or rejected.

21. On the other hand, with regard to a criminal offence under Section

9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (NAB Ordinance),

the law is equally settled. The relevant provisions read as under:-

9. Corruption and corrupt practices. (a)

A holder of a public office, or any other
person, is said to commit or to have committed
the offence of corruption and corrupt practices

(i) .

(ii) .

(iii) .

(iv) ..
(v) If he or any of his dependents or
benamidars owns, possesses, or has
acquired right or title in any assets or
holds irrevocable power of attorney in
respect of any assets or pecuniary
resources disproportionate to his known
sources of income, which he cannot
reasonably account for or maintains a
standard of living beyond that which is
commensurate with his sources of
income or;

22. It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that the

prosecution must establish that a person or his spouse or dependent or benamidar

owns or possesses a property. If the aforesaid allegation is proved then the

accused must give an explanation as to the source of legal funds for acquiring
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 320
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

such property and upon his failure to do so, he becomes liable for punishment

under the aforesaid law. Such punishment not only includes fine and

imprisonment but also disqualification from holding a public Office, including

that of Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora for a period of 10 years under Section 15

of the NAB Ordinance, 1999. Reference, in this behalf, can be made to the

judgments, reported as (1) Iqbal Ahmed Turabi and others v. The State (PLD 2004

SC 830), (2) Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability Bureau and others

(PLD 2011 SC 1144), (3) Abdul Aziz Memon and others v. The State and others

(PLD 2013 SC 594), (4) The State through Prosecutor General Accountability,

National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad v. Misbahuddin Farid (2003 SCMR

150), (5) Syed Zahir Shah and others v. National Accountability Bureau and

another (2010 SCMR 713), (6) Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State and

another (2010 SCMR 1697) and (7) Khalid Aziz v. The State (2011 SCMR 136).

23. In none of the aforesaid cases was any person convicted without a

definitive finding that the assets were in fact owned or possessed by the accused,

his spouse, his dependents or benamidars. And thereafter, the accused had failed

to account for the source of funds for acquiring the said property and if the

explanation was found unsatisfactory, conviction followed.

24. The explanation of the source of funds for acquiring the property is

a requirement of Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance, which cannot ipso facto

migrate into ROPA or the Constitutional provisions pertaining to elections

especially in the absence of any legislation by the Reformers. Any effort, in this

behalf, would not only be without any jurisprudential basis but be illegal.

25. In the above backdrop to hold that an MNA, who may (or may not)

own an undeclared property yet his explanation for the source of the funds for

acquiring such property, though legally irrelevant, is not acceptable, hence, such

MNA is disqualified, is a legal absurdity under the laws of the Islamic Republic of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 321
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Pakistan.

26. We cannot resort to exceptionalisim by making a departure from

the settled law and inventing a new set of rules merely because Respondent No.1

holds the Office of the Prime Minister. The last time in our legal history, when

such a course of action was followed, it had tragic consequences.

27. There is a possibility that the alleged grounds for disqualification

and the allegations constituting an offence under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB

Ordinance may partially overlap. However, it is a legal impossibility to disqualify

a person merely upon allegations. Though, such allegations may be sufficient for

initiation of criminal proceedings under the NAB Ordinance. To disqualify a

person in such an eventuality would require turning our entire Legal System on its

head and would constitute an act of jurisprudential heresy.

28. The Petitioners in an attempt to advance their case laid great

emphasis on Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. It was canvassed at the bar, on

their behalf, that the explanation offered by Respondent No.1 for acquisition of

the four Flats in London was not honest.

29. The provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution are

reproduced herein below for ease of reference:-

62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be

elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) unless

(a) .

(b) .

(c) .

(d) .

(e) .

(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-

profligate, honest and ameen, there
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 322
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

being no declaration to the contrary by a

court of law; and

(g)

30. Before the said provisions can be pressed into service, there must

be a declaration by Court of law. At the risk of stating the obvious, it may be

clarified that the Courts of law are concerned with the matters of law not morality.

There can be no manner of doubt that the term honest as employed in Article

62(1)(f) refers to legal honesty, an objective concept and not mere moral or ethical

honesty, which is subjective. The Courts have never wandered into the realm of

morality, in this behalf.

31. In the instant case, the issue agitated pertains not to any incorrect

statement made by the Respondents but rather the alleged failure to disclose the

entire facts. In the circumstances, a legal obligation to disclose such facts appears

to be a sine qua non to attract the provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution.

32. The election disputes pertaining to disqualification, including in

view of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, may crop up before, after or during

the elections. It may originate at the time of scrutiny of the Nomination Papers by

the Returning Officer, during the course of election and immediately thereafter in

disputes before the Election Commission of Pakistan. But most often Election

Petitions are filed before the Election Tribunal eventually constituted under

ROPA. And occasionally through Constitutional Petitions in the nature of quo

warranto filed before the High Court under Article 199 or before this Court under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Such

proceedings may or may not result in disqualification of a person or annulment of

his election or a part thereof. In some of such matters, which have come up before

this Court Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution required interpretation.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 323
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

33. The provisions of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in not too

dissimilar circumstances were invoked earlier seeking disqualification of

Respondent No.1. A Writ Petition was filed in the Lahore High Court wherein it

was contended that Respondent No.1 was liable to be disqualified on the

allegations that he had made a misstatement before the National Assembly. The

Writ Petition was dismissed vide Order dated 02.09.2014. An Intra Court Appeal

bearing No.865 of 2014 was also filed, which was also dismissed vide judgment

dated 8th September, 2014, reported as Gohar Nawaz Sindhu v. Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2014 Lahore 670). The Appeal was dismissed by,

inter alia, holding that a political question was involved, further the allegations of

misstatement have not been established on the material available on the record

and such statement on the floor of the House was protected by the privilege under

Article 66 of the Constitution, as it did not fall within the ambit of any of the

exception thereto as set down by this Court in its various judgments.

34. The aforesaid judgment was challenged before this Court through a

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal. Simultaneously, several Constitutional

Petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were also filed seeking a similar

relief which were heard along with the said Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal.

The aforesaid Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal and the Constitutional Petitions

were heard by a Larger Bench of this Court and were dismissed vide judgment,

reported as Ishaq Khan Khakwani and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

and others (PLD 2015 SC 275). This Court held that the question involved before

the learned High Court was not of a nature which could not be adjudicated upon,

hence, the judgment of the learned High Court only to the extent that the Writ

Petitions being not maintainable, were set aside. However, the judgment

dismissing the Writ Petition was maintained and the Constitutional Petitions under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution were also dismissed. The legal questions, which
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 324
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

floated to the surface, were not answered.

35. However, Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution also came up in the

cases, reported as (1) Ghaznafar Ali Gull v. Ch. Tajammul Hussain and others

(1997 CLC 1628), (2) Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Bar v. Chief Election

Commissioner, Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 SC 817), (3) Muhammad

Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828), (4) Rana Aftab Ahmad

Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal and another (PLD 2010 SC 1066), (5) Muddasar

Qayyum Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and others (2011 SCMR 80), (6) Mian Najeeb-

ud-Din Owaisi v. Aamir Yar and 7 others (2011 SCMR 180), (7) Malik Iqbal

Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam and others (PLD 2013 SC 179), (8) Mian

Najeeb-ud-din Owasi and another v. Amir Yar Waran and others (PLD 2013 SC

482), (9) Sadiq Ali Memon v. Returning Officer, NA-237 Thatta-I and others

(2013 SCMR 1246), (10) Abdul Ghafoor Lehari v. Returning Officer PB-29,

Naseerabad-II and others (2013 SCMR 1271), (11) Muhammad Khan Junejo v.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law, Justice and Parliamentary

Affairs and others (2013 SCMR 1328), (12) Allah Dino Khan Bhayo v. Election

Commission of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1655), (13) Molvi Muhammad Sarwar and

others v. Returning Officer PB-15 Musa Khail and others (2013 CLC 1583), (14)

Malik Umar Aslam v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2014 SCMR 45), (15)

Muhammad Siddique Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC

97) and (16) Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmed Tarar and

others (2016 SCMR 1).

36. In all the aforesaid cases, the applicability of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution was considered. In no case, any person was disqualified under the

said Article in the absence of an established and proved breach of a legal

obligation or violation of a law. In no case, the question of Article 62(1)(f) was

even seriously considered in the absence of at least specific allegations of breach

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 325
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of a legal obligation or violation of law. No judgment of this Court has been cited

at the bar where a person has been disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) for being

dishonest where such alleged dishonesty did not offend against the law or involve

a breach or non-fulfillment of a legal obligation.

37. Such is the true and obvious import of Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution, as has been consistently without any exception interpreted and

applied by this Court. Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution cannot be permitted to

be used as a tool for political engineering by this Court nor should this Court

arrogation unto itself the power to vet candidates on moral grounds, like a Council

of Elders as is done in a neighbouring Country. Under our Constitutional

dispensation, Pakistan is to be governed by the Representatives chosen by the

people and not chosen by any Institution or a few individuals.

38. The Petitioners have laid great emphasis on the various speeches

on the subject in question made by Respondent No.1 as well as interviews given

by him and Respondents Nos.6 to 8 at various points of time. The learned counsel

went to great lengths in an attempt to show contradictions and improvements in

explanations offered by the said Respondents with regard to the assets attributed

to them. The aforesaid speeches and interviews are, at best, previous statements

with which the makers thereof could be confronted in the event of an evidentiary

hearing, especially as the said Respondents were under no legal obligation to

make such statements or give such interviews. The compulsion was political and

so to its effect.

39. Be that as it may, there can be no escape from the fact that the

statements made in the speeches and interviews given by Respondents No.1 and 6

to 8 do not appear to be in sync with each other.

40. At best periodically and incrementally small pieces of a jigsaw

puzzle were made public, which do not really fit in with each other. Had the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 326
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

explanations been clear, satisfactory and acceptable, no one would have been

allowed to come knocking at our door.

41. Emphasis was laid on behalf of the Petitioners upon the alleged

contradictions between the statements/interviews of Respondent No.1 and those

of Respondents Nos.6 to 8. The response of the counsel for the Respondents No.7

and 8, in this behalf, was not without force. He contended that there is no basis for

the assumption that the statements/interviews of Respondent No.7 are the gospel

truth and, therefore, the statements/ interviews of Respondent No.1 in purported

deviation thereof are untrue as is alleged by the Petitioners.

There is another aspect of the matter that true facts in respect of the title to

and the source of funds for the acquisition of the properties in question has not

been consecutively established through cogent, undisputed or reliable evidence,

therefore, truthfulness or otherwise of the statements/ interviews of Respondents

No.1 or 7 cannot be ascertained.

42. It has been noticed that the learned counsel for the Petitioners had

attempted to present their case for disqualification of Respondent No.1 on the

alleged lack of probity in statements/interviews of Respondent No.7. Vicarious

liability has a precarious existence on the periphery of our Legal System as an

extreme exception to the general principle that a person is responsible for his own

acts and omissions and not that of others. Such vicarious liability must be

specifically set forth in clear-cut terms and cannot be assumed. Such vicarious

liability has no place in our Election Laws, including the Constitutional provisions

of Articles 62 and 63 pertaining to the qualification and the disqualification of

candidates. A father cannot be disqualified if his son is of unsound mind [Article

63(1)(a)]. Similarly, a father cannot be disqualified if his son has been convicted

for an offence involving moral turpitude or such son has been dismissed from the

service of Pakistan (Article 63(1)(h) & (i). Thus, obviously a father cannot be
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 327
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disqualified if his son is allegedly dishonest [Article 62(1)(f)].

43. To rely upon the statements/interviews of Respondents No.7 and 8,

in the above context, would require rewriting the Laws pertains to Elections,

including Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and the corresponding provisions

of ROPA, 1976. In the current legal dispensation attributing vicarious liability to a

father for the acts and omissions of his son, more particularly, oral statements

would result in a legal farce, which cannot be contemplated.

44. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 with his usual

professional dexterity pleaded privilege under Article 66 of the Constitution

regarding the speech on 16th May, 2016 made on the floor of the House by

Respondent No.1. We are aware of the speech and debate clause and the

protection available to the Members of the Parliament thereunder and also the

limitations of such protection and privilege. The speech dated 16 th May, 2016, on

its own is not a ground for culpability, hence, it is not necessary to decide such

privilege.

45. In pith and substance, the case of the Petitioners in Constitution

Petitions Nos.29 & 30 of 2016, was focused on the four flats i.e. Flats Nos.16, 16-

A, 17 and 17-A, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, in respect whereof, it was

contended that the same were in the beneficial ownership of Respondent No.6

Maryam Safdar, who allegedly was legally dependant of Respondent No.1 Mian

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and the said Respondent No.1 had not disclosed the

ownership of the said flats in his Nomination Papers and in the periodic statement

of assets submitted to the Speaker, hence, was disqualified. The case of the

Petitioners in Constitution Petitions Nos.29 & 30 of 2016 hinged on the allegation

that Respondent No.6 Maryam Safdar was a dependant of Respondent No.1 and,

in this behalf, reliance was placed upon the Income Tax Return of Respondent

No.1 for the year 2011, in which Respondent No.6 had been mentioned in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 328
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Column No.12 pertaining to the assets held in the name of, inter alia, a

dependant. It was also alleged that the said Respondent No.6 had no independent

source of income. Reference, in this behalf, was made to her Income Tax Returns

and that of her husband Muhammad Safdar, Respondent No.9.

46. The record reveals that Respondent No.6 was mentioned in the

aforesaid terms only in one Income Tax Return i.e. for the year 2011, while it is

not so mentioned in the preceding or succeeding Financial Years in the Income

Tax Returns by Respondent No.1.

47. The learned counsels for Respondents Nos.1 & 6 also stated that if

property was held in someone else's name whether a dependant or not, it could

only be mentioned in the said Column at that point of time. Since land had been

purchased by Respondent No.1 in the name of Respondent No.6, hence, her name

was mentioned in respect of the said land in the relevant Column in the relevant

year and upon receipt of consideration subsequently with regard to the said land

from Respondent No.6 Maryam Safdar through Banking Channels, her name was

excluded in the next year from the said Column.

48. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a

subsequent Notification dated 03.7.2015 issued by the Federal Board of Revenue

amending the Income Tax Form wherein property if held in someone else's name

would be specifically mentioned without showing the said person, as a dependant.

49. It is also evident from the public record, copies whereof were filed

by the Petitioners that a large number of shares of various companies were owned

by Respondent No.6.

50. It was also found strange that on one hand, the Petitioners claimed

that Respondent No.6 owned four very valuable flats in Central London worth

millions of dollars, yet, it was alleged, she was a dependant of Respondent No.1.

51. In the above circumstances, it is not possible to determine

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 329
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

conclusively on the basis of the material produced by the Petitioners or which had

otherwise become available that Respondent No.6 was a dependant of Respondent

No.1 and the property, if any, in her name, was required to be disclosed by

Respondent No.1 in his Nomination Papers.

52. The primary basis of the case of the Petitioners are the series of

documents, which allegedly formed a part of the record of a Panamian Law Firm

Mossack-Fonseca, which was leaked and are commonly referred to as the Panama

Papers. The said documents are, in fact, copies, including of e-mails and are by

and large unsigned. Furthermore, the said documents to the extent that the same

pertains to the private Respondents are, in fact, denied. In the circumstances, only

an innocent simpleton could expect this Court to give a finding or pronounce

judgment based upon the copies of unsigned documents, which are disputed and

have not come from proper custody. This is a legal impossibility in view of the

provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Such documents cannot form the

basis of a judicial pronouncement in any civilized country with a developed or

even a developing Legal System. There is no legal precedent, in this behalf.

53. The documents in question are the purported result of the efforts of

investigative journalists. Such efforts should never be underestimated. Exposure

by such journalists has resulted in the crumbling of many an alabaster pedestal

and the fall of political icons. Such is the political not the legal consequence of the

reports of the journalists. We are also witnesses to the fact that such reports have

resulted in initiation of criminal prosecutions and launch of the proceedings for

the disqualification or impeachment of the high and mighty but mere publication

of such reports of material discovered by investigative journalists on its own, do

not ipso facto result in the convictions or impeachment.

54. The source of incriminating information is usually not official and

is fiercely guarded by such journalists with their liberty and occasionally with
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 330
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

their lives. The documents usually, as in the instant case, are copies and not duly

certified nor in a form acceptable in a Court of law. The whistle blower, who can

perhaps prove the documents may or may not be available. Immediate fall out is

political. However, for legal purposes, the efforts of such journalists should not be

discounted. Their reports are the vital key, which is used by investigators and

prosecutors to gather and collect material and evidence in a form acceptable to the

Court so that the facts can be ascertained and the law applied thereto.

Investigative journalists are not a substitute for investigators and prosecutors.

55. In the instant case, upon release of the Panama Papers, the

Opposition Parties and the Civil Society started demanding that the allegations

against the Members of the Sharif Family arising from the Panama Papers be

inquired into and the facts be ascertained. It was understood between the

Government and the Opposition that the allegations emanating the Panama

Papers would require to be established. In fact, there was consensus between

the lawman and layman alike that no punitive action could be taken against

Respondent No.1, any member of his family or any other person without at least

some ascertainment of facts through investigation or inquiry perhaps by a

Commission. In the above backdrop, a demand was made that a Commission

consisting of a Judge of this Court be appointed to conduct an inquiry, gather the

evidence and ascertain the facts. The Government, in principle, perhaps

reluctantly, accepted the demand. However, a serious dispute arose as to the

Terms of Reference (TORs) for such Commission. Despite many a meetings and

photo opportunity, the matter of the TORs could not be resolved. The Government

accused the Opposition of seeking a Prime Minister centric TOR, while the

Opposition claimed that the Government wished to expand the scope on TORs to

such an extent that no conclusion would be possible.

56. However, it appeared to be a common ground between all the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 331
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

parties concerned that the contents of the Panama Papers raised serious issues

forming the basis of a host of allegations against Respondent No.1 and his family

and such allegations needed to be inquired into and established so that an action in

law, if justified, would be taken against Respondent No.1 be it disqualification or

prosecution for a criminal offence.

57. Such revelations regardless of the credibility of the journalists

responsible therefor, legally, at best, would form the basis of allegations until

proved through admission or evidence before the Court of Law. In 60 years

touching from 1957 to 2017, the proceedings, seeking disqualification of a

candidate or an elected member, have repeatedly come up before this Court from

various subordinate forums including the cases reported as (1) Muhammad Saeed

and 4 others v. Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan and others [PLD 1957

SC (Pak.) 91], (2) Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Fida Hussain Dero (PLD 2004 SC

452), (3) Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Ghulam Muhammad Lali (PLD 2007 SC 369), (4)

Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 2010 SC

817), (5) Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828),

(6) Rana Aftab Ahmed v. Muhammad Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066), (7) Haji Nasir

Mehmood v. Mian Imran Masood (PLD 2010 SC 1089), (8) Malik Iqbal Ahmad

Langrial v. Jamshed Alam and others (PLD 2013 SC 179), (9) Mian Najeeb-ud-

din Owaise v. Amir Yar Waran (PLD 2013 SC 482), (10) Muhammad Siddique

Baloch v. Jehangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2016 SC 97), (11) Muhammad

Yousaf Kaselia v. Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 SC 689), (12) Rai Hassan Nawaz v.

Haji Muhammad Ayub and others (PLD 2017 SC 70), (13) Muddasar Qayyum

Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz and others (2011 SCMR 80), (14) Mian Najeeb-ud-Din

Owaisi v. Aamir Yar and 7 others (2011 SCMR 180), (15) Sadiq Ali Memon v.

Returning Officer, NA-237 Thatta-I and others (2013 SCMR 1246), (16) Abdul

Ghafoor Lehari v. Returning Officer PB-29, Naseerabad-II and others (2013

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 332
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

SCMR 1271), (17) Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Federation of Pakistan through

Secretary, M/o Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others (2013 SCMR

1328), (18) Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCMR 1582), (19) Allah Dino

Khan Bhayo v. Election Commission of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1655), (20) Malik

Umar Aslam v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2014 SCMR 45), (21)

Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmed Tarar and others (2016

SCMR 1), (22) Muhammad Ahmed Chatta v. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema (2016

SCMR 763), (23) Shamuna Badshah Qaisrani v. Muhammad Dawood (2016

SCMR 1420) and (24) Molvi Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Returning Officer

PB-15 Musa Khail and others (2013 CLC 1583).

58. In none of the above cases, any person was disqualified or

unseated on the basis of allegations alone without such allegations being duly

proved or the relevant facts duly ascertained before the Competent Legal Forum.

59. It is in the above perspective that the

instant Petitions were filed before this Court. The

parties were initially heard in an effort to narrow

down the controversy and formulate fair and

result oriented TORs. Proposed TORs were filed by

all the sides. It was understood between the

parties that a Commission would be appointed, as

is obvious from the order of this Court dated

07.11.2016, which is reproduced hereunder for

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 333
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

ease of reference:-

2. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate

to direct all the parties to these proceedings to
place on record all the documents on which
they intend to rely in support of their
respective cases. No further opportunity in this
regard will be available to them during the
proceedings before the Commission. It is all
the more necessary for the reason that this
Court may also be able to go through these
documents before deciding the question of
appointment of Commission or otherwise. It is,
however, clarified here that in case the
Commission is appointed, this order will not
prejudice or curtail its authority to call for any
record from any source.

However, on 09.12.2016 Mr. Naeem Bokhari, learned counsel for the

Petitioner in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 on instructions, in a rather

belligerent tone, stated that a Commission by a Judge of this Court was not

acceptable and the matter be decided by this Court on the existing record. The

relief of the opposite side could barely be concealed. One of the unsolved

mysteries of the case is this sudden change of heart by the Petitioners and more

importantly what persuaded the Petitioners to believe that a definitive finding

could be given by this Court on the photocopies of disputed unsigned documents

not coming from a proper custody or Respondent No.1 could be disqualified on

mere allegations emanating out of the Panama Papers.

60. However, in order to initiate proceedings for an alleged offence

under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance, the allegations seriously leveled

may be sufficient. On its Constitutional jurisdiction being invoked, this Court and

the High Court may direct initiation of such criminal proceedings. Obviously,

neither this Court nor the High Court can directly convict a person, while

exercising its Constitutional original jurisdiction that too without recording any
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 334
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

evidence.

61. Adverting now to the Constitution Petition No.3 of 2017 filed by

Senator Siraj-ul-Haq, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami, who also sought the disqualification

of Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. The main thrust of the

arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner (In Constitution Petition No.3

of 2017) was that the corruption and holding of assets beyond his known sources

of income by Respondent No.1 had been conclusively established in view of the

judgment of this Court in Syed Zafar Ali Shahs case, reported as Syed Zafar Ali

Shah and others v. General Pervaiz Musharaf, Chief Executive of Pakistan and

others (2000 SCMR 869). It was contended that the allegations, in this behalf,

were leveled by the State against Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif but his counsel Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC did not controvert the

said allegations. The record of the said case was summoned and examined and it

was discovered that Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC was not the counsel of

Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in the aforesaid case, hence,

the entire contention of the learned counsel is based on a misunderstanding.

62. Furthermore in the said case, the overthrow of a Democratic

Government through extra-Constitutional means was unfortunately upheld but no

findings of fact with regard to Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,

were or could have been recorded. A mere mention that a large number of

references are pending against Respondent No.1 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif

cannot form the basis of his disqualification.

63. Thus, the case, as canvassed by the Petitioners, more particularly,

in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 could not succeed as the allegations therein

could not be proved to the satisfaction of this Court. However, in view of the

nature of the jurisdiction invoked i.e. under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which is inquisitorial in nature rather than
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 335
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

merely adversarial the Petitioners cannot be tied down merely to their pleadings.

The entire material available on the record must necessarily be examined in the

context of the applicable law.

64. We are confronted with a matter consisting of rather interesting

legal propositions and complicated facts. We cannot afford the luxury of over

simplification or intellectual lethargy. The questions raised will need to be

analyzed in their true, factual and legal perspective. Even the question of the

source of funds may become relevant but in a totally different context and

perspective.

65. In order to ascertain the real matter in controversy, which has

floated to the surface, it is necessary to avoid being distracted by the sound and

fury raised by all sides in equal measures both inside and outside of the

Courtroom. Having distanced ourselves from the irrelevant, the illogical and the

non-legal, we must now come to the grips with the real matter in issue before us,

whose seriousness and importance should not be underestimated. It is an admitted

fact between the parties that the said four Flats are owned by two Offshore

Companies i.e. M/s. Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited registered

in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). It is also evident from the record and not

disputed between the parties that the said Flats were acquired by the two aforesaid

BVI Companies, between the years 1993-1995 for a total consideration of US$

1.9 million.

66. It is the case of Respondents No.1 and 6 to 8 that the aforesaid two

BVI Companies i.e. M/s. Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited (hence

the Flats) are owned by Respondent No.7 Hussain Nawaz since June 2006. Prior

to 2006, the two Companies had issued Bearer Share Certificates not in the name

of any particular person and the Companies, (and the Flats) vested in the

person(s), who had possession of such shares. It is the case of Respondents No.1
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 336
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and 6 to 8 that Respondent No.7 had acquired the two Companies in June, 2006

from the Al-Thani Family of Qatar, which had the custody of the Bearer Share

Certificates. It was their case that an investment had been made by Mian

Muhammad Sharif, the father of Respondent No.1 with the Al-Thani Family and,

as per the wishes of Mian Muhammad Sharif, upon settlement of accounts of such

investment, the Bearer Share Certificates of the two Companies, hence, the Flats

in question were given to Respondent No.7. It is also their case that upon

obtaining custody of Bearer Share Certificates of the two companies, Respondent

No.7 Hussain Nawaz Sharif nominated his sister i.e. Respondent No.6 Maryam

Safdar, as a Trustee of the two companies in June, 2006.

67. Respondent No.7 through CMA No.7531 of 2016 has made

available some of the documents pertaining to the two BVI Companies i.e. M/s.

Nielson Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited. It appears from the record

appended with the said CMA that M/s. Nielson Enterprises Limited was

incorporated on 04.8.1994. A Certificate of Incorporation in this respect was

issued by the Registrar of the Companies of British Virgin Island (BVI). On

22.11.1994, one Bearer Share Certificate was issued i.e. Bearer Share Certificate

No.001 (available at page 65 of CMA No.7531 of 2016). The said Share

Certificate was eventually cancelled as is noted thereupon. On 04.7.2006 another

share Certificate bearing No.0002 was issued in the name of M/s. Minerva

Nominees Limited. Also on 04.7.2006, another Share Certificate bearing No.0003

was issued in the name of M/s. Minerva Services Limited. On 09.6.2014, Share

Certificate No.4 was issued pertaining to two Ordinary Shares issued in the name

of M/s. Trustee Service Corporation.

68. With regard to M/s. Nescoll Limited, the documents appended with

CMA No.7531 of 2016 reveal that it was incorporated on 27.01.1993 as is evident

from the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies BVI.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 337
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

On 29.4.1993, one Bearer Share Certificate was issued bearing No.1. The said

Certificate was subsequently cancelled. On 04.7.2006, one Share Certificate

bearing No.0002 was issued in the name of M/s. Minerva Nominees Limited. On

04.7.2006, yet another Share Certificate No.0003 was issued in the name of M/s.

Minerva Services Limited. Subsequently, on 09.6.2014, two Ordinary Shares

bearing Certificate No.4 was issued in the name of M/s. Trustee Service

Corporation.

69. A perusal of the aforesaid record reveals that originally Bearer

Shares Certificates were issued, which vested in the person, who had custody and

possession thereof. Such person owned the Companies, hence the flats. However,

subsequently in 2006 shares were issued in the name of two entities M/s. Minerva

Nominees Limited and Minerva Services Limited. It was obvious and not

disputed by the parties that M/s. Minerva is a service provider. Such relationship

continued till 2014, when M/s. Minerva was replaced by M/s. Trustee Service

Corporation, obviously another service provider for Offshore Companies. In the

circumstances, it is clear and obvious that the person, who instructed M/s.

Minerva Nominees Limited and M/s. Minerva Services Limited in 2006 and M/s.

Trustee Service Corporation in June 2014 to provide services for the two

companies M/s. Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited, is the real

beneficial owner of two companies. The said documents were not provided. This

aspect of the matter was pointed out to the learned counsel for the Respondents,

more particularly, Respondent No.7.

70. In the above backdrop, CMA No.432 of 2017 was filed on behalf

of Respondents Nos.7 and 8 appended therewith were various letters procured

during pendency of the case originating from M/s. Minerva, Trustee Service

Corporation and JPCA Limited indicating that they were providing services for

the two companies M/s. Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 338
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Reference was also made to some meetings with Respondent Hussain Nawaz

Sharif but what was not filed were the agreements or any other document

instructing M/s. Minerva, Trustee Service Corporation or JPCA Limited to

provide the services in respect of the said Offshore Companies, which should

have indentified the real beneficial owner of the said Companies.

71. During the course of proceedings, an attempt was also made by

Respondent No.7 to suggest that Respondent No.6 was only an authorized

signatory qua of two Companies rather than its beneficial owner or trustee. The

record, in this behalf, was also appended with CMA No.432 of 2017.

72. There is no document available on the record in favour of

Respondent No.7 Hussain Nawaz to show that he (Respondent No.7) is a

shareholder i.e. owner of the two BVI Companies. The Trust Deed dated 2 nd/4th

June, 2006 is not the evidence of Respondent No.7s title. It pre-supposes that the

shares vest in Respondent No.7 Hussain Nawaz Sharif and, at best, is an

admission in ones own favour, which is legally irrelevant.

73. In case of dispute or lack of clarity as to the true title, legal,

equitable or beneficial of a property, it may be necessary to identify the source of

funds for acquisition thereof. In the instant case, it has been presented before us

that the father of Respondent No.1, Mian Muhammad Sharif setup Gulf Steel

Mills in 1972 in Dubai. It was sold through two separate agreements of 1975 and

1980. The funds realized therefrom were invested with the Al-Thani Family in

Qatar and the proceeds of such funds and the profit therefrom upon mutual

settlement, as per the desire of Mian Muhammad Sharif, made available to

Respondent No.7 and accounted for the Flats in question the Steel

Mills/businesses set up in Saudi Arabia and various businesses commenced in

London by Respondent No.8 Hassan Nawaz. In support of said contentions,

Respondent No.7 had filed a Tripartite Agreement of 1978 for sale of 75% shares
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 339
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of Gulf Steel Mills and Agreement dated 14.4.1980 for sale of remaining 25%

shares. Two letters dated 05.11.2016 and dated 22.12.2016 issued by a member of

the Al-Thani Family were filed and relied upon, in this behalf.

74. A perusal of the aforesaid documents reveals that the Gulf Steel

Mills, Dubai, the alleged mother source of all the assets, had a negative equity at

the time of its sale i.e. its liabilities exceeded its assets. A fact mentioned in

clause (viii) of the Tripartite Agreement of 1978. Through the Tripartite

Agreement, 75% of the shares allegedly held by Mian Muhammad Sharif in the

name of his nephew Tariq Shafi, were sold and all funds received paid directly to

BCCI towards repayment in partial satisfaction of an existing loan. The entire

remaining liability of the company was taken over by said Tariq Shafi, the proxy

of Mian Muhammad Sharif, as per clause viii(a). Subsequently, vide Agreement

dated 14.4.1980, the balance of 25% shares were sold and the funds released, it

was claimed, were invested with the Al-Thani Family in Qatar. However, no

explanation for payment of the remaining obviously outstanding liabilities of Gulf

Steel Mills has been offered. The learned counsel for Respondents Nos.7 and 8

frankly conceded that there are gaps, in this behalf, which could not be

explained.

75. It has also been noticed that the entire narrative, in this behalf, was

disclosed incrementally by Respondents No.1 and 7.

76. However, the most critical aspects of the matter are the documents,

which have not been filed. No agreement of deposit or investment by Mian

Muhammad Sharif with Al-Thani Family of Qatar has been filed. No formal

document of alleged settlement of accounts, in this behalf, has been filed.

77. No receipt for the alleged periodic withdrawal by the

Respondents is available on the record. The transactions, as alleged, in the normal

course involved investment, withdrawal and transfer of large amounts from one
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 340
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

country to another country, yet, no banking documents evidencing such

transactions have made available. The failure to underpin even one of the

transactions through banking documents is neither strange.

78. The narrative, as presented by Respondents, does not seem

confidence inspiring in view of what has been said in the preceding paragraphs. A

counter narrative also surfaced at various points of time and criminal proceedings

on the basis of said counter narrative were initiated, firstly in year 1994, when two

FIRs were registered, which were quashed and the accused therein were acquitted

vide judgment dated 27.5.1997 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.12172 & 12173 of

1997 on the basis of the Economic Reforms Order of 1992 and subsequently, the

proceedings under the NAB Ordinance were initiated through Reference No.5 of

2000. However, the said Reference was quashed on the ground that since

Respondent No.1 and his family were not in Pakistan and, therefore, they had no

opportunity to explain the source of funds for the assets in question, which, inter

alia, included the four Flats in question. The two learned Judges of the Lahore

High Court, having concurred in this aspect of the matter, differed on the future

course of action available to the NAB. One was of the view that in future, the

investigation could take place, while the other expressed his opinion that the

matter stood concluded. The case was referred to a third learned Judge, who also

held vide judgment dated 11.3.2014, reported as M/s. Hudaibya Papers Mills Ltd

and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 667) that

further investigations were not legally possible. We have examined the said

judgments, which have been placed on record and are surprised by the

conclusions drawn but we are not surprised by the failure of NAB to file an

appeal against the aforesaid judgments before this Court. The Chairman, NAB

shamelessly defended the decision of not filing an appeal. Interestingly, appeals

are filed by the NAB before this Court in routine but not in this case. We believe
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 341
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that a population census is in progress. It is expected that the population of

Pakistan would be more or less 200 million. If out of the 200 million people of

Pakistan the only person, we can find to head over Premier Anti-corruption

Institution is Respondent No.2, we might as well legalize corruption.

79. In this day and age, when Offshore Companies and Special

Purpose Vehicles are employed to disguise ownership as in the instant case, the

title of a person in a property is not necessarily in black or white. Such title, legal

equitable and/or beneficial needs to be discovered in the various shades of grey.

This Court in the case, reported as Rai Hasan Nawaz v. Haji Muhammad Ayub

and others (PLD 2017 SC 70) observed as follows:-

Where assets, liabilities, earnings and

income of an elected or contesting candidate
are camouflaged or concealed by resort to
different legal devices including benami,
trustee, nominee, etc. arrangements for
constituting holders of title, it would be
appropriate for a learned Election Tribunal to
probe whether the beneficial interest in such
assets or income resides in the elected or
contesting candidate in order to ascertain if his
false or incorrect statement of declaration
under Section 12(2) of the ROPA is intentional
or otherwise.

The instant case involves various properties not only the four Flats in

London owned through two BVI Companies but also Gulf Steel Mills, Dubai and

Azizia Steel Mills near Jeddah and the Hill Metal Establishment, which is

currently functioning in Jeddah.

80. A clear cut explanation for the title thereof and all the obvious

documents in support thereof should be in the custody of the private Respondent,

who claims to be the owner. Such documents have been deliberately withheld

from this Court. The Flats have been in occupation of the Sharif Family since

early 90s through Respondent No.8, who was a student and was a dependent upon
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 342
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.1 at that point of time. The alleged source of funds through which

the various properties were acquired is shrouded in mystery and no clear cut

transparent transactions have been shown. Respondent No.1 has admittedly

benefitted from such assets, including Hill Metal Establishment through various

gifts totaling an amount of Rs.84 corers as is mentioned in CMA No.432 of

2017. The stand of Respondent No.7, in this behalf, was also interesting and is

reproduced herein below:-

The purpose of these remittances has been to

free his father form any financial constraints

given his full time involvement in politics.

81. In the above circumstances, I find myself unable to conclude that

the assets in question, more particularly, the four flats i.e. Flats No.16, 16-A, 17

and 17-A, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, businesses in London and Hill

Metal Establishment in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have no nexus with Respondent

No.1 and the possibility of his equitable or beneficial interest therein cannot be

ruled out.

82. We are dealing with the first Family of the country. Respondent

No.1 is the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The questions regarding properties of his

family members outside Pakistan have remained unanswered. Such an

inconclusive state of affairs is not acceptable. The people of Pakistan have a right

to know the truth.

83. No doubt, ordinarily this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution tends to avoid deciding the disputed questions

of facts. However, this is not an absolute rule. In exceptional circumstances, this

Court on more than one occasion has undertaken such an exercise.

84. In the case, reported as Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 343
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), this Court in

order to determine whether the Respondent Parliamentarians held dual nationality,

summoned and examined the various official records and reports, in this behalf,

and gave a finding of fact that some of such Parliamentarians were foreign

nationals, hence, disqualified. In the case, reported as Pakistan Muslim League

(N) through Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA and others v. Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others (PLD 2007 SC 642), this Court

while examining the nature of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3)

observed as follows:

20. (vii) That even the disputed questions

of facts which do not require voluminous
evidence can be looked into where
Fundamental Right has been breached.
However, in case where intricate disputed
questions of facts involving voluminous
evidence are involved the Court will desist
from entering into such controversies.
85. As far back as in the year 1994, this Court, in the case, reported as

General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union (CBA) Khewra,

Jhelum v. the Director Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore

(1994 SCMR 2061) appointed a Commission to determine whether water supply

was being polluted, which fact was disputed between the parties.

86. We are aware of the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution,

whereby an election can be called into question only through the Election

Tribunals constituted thereunder. Such Election Tribunals can also examine, inter

alia, the qualification and disqualification of the candidates if challenged before

them. The legal possibility of referring the matter to the Election Commission of

Pakistan under Article 63(2) of the Constitution, was also considered. The

aforesaid provision reads as under:

63.(2)If any question arises whether a member

of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 344
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disqualified from being a member, the Speaker

or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall,
unless he decides that no such question has
arisen, refer the question to the Election
Commission within thirty days and if he fails to
do so within the aforesaid period it shall be
deemed to have been referred to the Election
Commission.

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear and obvious that the same

is attracted when a sitting Member by virtue of events subsequent to the election

has become disqualified. It pertains to post-election disqualification. The said

provision has been interpreted by this Court in the case, reported as Muhammad

Azhar Siddiqui and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 SC

774) in the following terms:

40. If a question of post-election

disqualification arises under any sub-clause of
Art. 63(1) the matter must be referred to the
Speaker or Chairman of the House of
Parliament under Art. 63(2).

In the instant case, the allegations against Respondent No.1 primarily pertain to
the alleged non-declaration of his assets in the Nomination Papers. Even though
such allegations surfaced after the elections, the same would not qualify as a post-
election disqualification, hence, the matter cannot be referred to the Election
Commission of Pakistan through the Speaker or otherwise.
However, it is now settled law and has been

so settled through a series of judgments of this

Court including Farzand Ali v. Province of West

Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 98) and Muhammad

Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 2012 SC 774) that a Constitution

Petition in the nature of a writ of quo warranto is

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 345
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

maintainable against a Member of the Majlis-e-

Shoora, if he is disqualified or did not possess or

has lost his qualification, in this behalf. Such

Constitutional Petitions can always be filed before

the learned High Court under Article 199 of the

Constitution and before this Court under Article

184(3) of the Constitution, as has been filed in the

instant case.

87. In the instant case, the allegations against Respondent No.1 were

not conclusively established, yet, sufficient suspicious circumstances, detailed

above, have come to light, which require to be investigated to facilitate the

discovery of the true facts. Such investigation appears to be necessary before we

can proceed further in the matter. Despite the jurisdiction to determine the

disputed questions of facts and the tools, in this behalf, available to this Court

mentioned above, this Court does not have the powers under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution to investigate a matter. Reference, in this behalf, may be made to the

judgment of this Court, reported as Suo Motu Action regarding allegation of

business deal between Malik Riaz Hussain and Dr. Arsalan Iftikhar attempting to

influence the judicial process (PLD 2012 SC 664).

88. When the matter relates to the persons in high places, special

measures need to be taken to ensure an impartial, fair and effective investigation

and inquiry. To achieve such end, in unexceptional circumstances, the Court keeps
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 346
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

a vigilant eye over the investigation by keeping itself abreast of the progress

thereof. The most significant case in hand is the Hawala case of Indian Supreme

Court, reported as Vineet Narain and others v. Union of Indian and another (AIR

1998 SC 889). This Court also on more than one occasion has passed similar

orders with regard to the investigation, including the cases, reported as Corruption

in Hajj Arrangements in 2010 (PLD 2011 SC 963) and Suo Motu action regarding

violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 in procurement loss of billions of

Rupees of exchequer caused by National Insurance Company Ltd. [2012 PLC

(CS) 394].

89. Since, the primary Anti-Corruption Agency appears to be neither

able nor willing to fulfill its legal obligations, we are constrained to look

elsewhere. In India, an issue pertaining to foreign accounts of Indian Nationals

organizing in Brazil with information in respect thereof available in Germany

came up before its Supreme Court in the case, reported as Ram Jethmalani and

others v. Union of India and others [(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1]. The

Government was allegedly dragging its feet and not even disclosing the names of

individuals involved. The Supreme Court of India constituted a Special

Investigation Team. The relevant portion of this case is reproduced hereunder for

ease of reference:

49. In light of the above we herewith

order:

(i) That the High Level

Committee constituted by
the Union of India,
comprising of (i) Secretary,
Department of Revenue; (ii)
Deputy Governor, Reserve
Bank of India; (iii) Director
(IB); (iv) Director,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 347
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Enforcement; (v) Director,

CBI; (vi) Chairman, CBDT;
(vii) DG, Narcotics Control
Bureau; (vii) DG, Revenue
Intelligence; (ix) Director,
Financial Intelligence Unit;
and (x) JS (FT & TR-I),
CBDT be forthwith
appointed with immediate
effect as a Special
Investigation Team;

(ii) That the Special

Investigation Team, so
constituted, also include
Director, Research and
Analysis Wing;

(iii) That the above Special

Investigation Team, so
constituted, be headed by
and include the following
former eminent judges of
this Court: (a) Hon'ble Mr.
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy
as Chairman; and (b)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B.
Shah as Vice-Chairman;
and that the Special
Investigation Team function
under their guidance and
direction;

In the instant case, in order to ensure that every possible effort is made to discover

the truth and place it before the people of Pakistan and also to ensure that the legal

consequences, if any, follow. It appears that the help and assistance must be
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 348
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

sought from similar institutions of the State of Pakistan. Involvement of such

institutions for the purposes of investigation in criminal matters is not alien to our

Law in Pakistan. Reference, in this behalf, may be made to Section 19(i)(1) of

Anti-Terrorism, Act, 1997.

90. Consequently, it is appropriate that the matter be investigated by a

Joint Investigating Team (JIT) headed by a Senior Officer not below the rank of

Additional Director General, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and consisting

of Representatives of Intelligence Bureau (IB), Inter Services Intelligence (ISI),

Military Intelligence (MI), State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), Security & Exchange

Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The

Heads of the aforesaid Institutions shall nominate the Members of the Joint

Investigation Team (JIT) and communicate such names to us in Chambers within

one week for our information and approval.

91. We have been constrained to cast a wide

net as regard to the institution, the Offices

whereof are to form the Members of the JIT. The

attitude of NAB has gone a long way in pushing

us in this direction. Furthermore, it has been

alleged that some of other investigating

institutions are also under the influence of

Respondent No.1 and under his direct or indirect

control. Such sweeping allegations may or may

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 349
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

not be wholly true but do not appear to be

unfounded. Furthermore, the nature of expertise

require in the instant investigation is not confined

to any one institution and the several institutions

may be able to supplement such expertise.

92. The matter, in issue, in this case

requiring investigation and eventually

adjudication is whether Respondent No.1 directly

or indirectly owns the properties and assets,

which has not been disclosed in his Nomination

Papers, more particularly, the flats in question i.e.

Flats Nos. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A, Avenfield

House, Park Lane, London and the current

business known as Hill Metal Establishment,

being currently conducted in the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia. The sources of funds for acquisition

of such properties would also need to be identified

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 350
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

as they may be relevant for identifying the true

ownership of the property and assets, and if such

sources are unexplained or beyond the known

sources of income of the owner of such assets,

criminal proceedings may follow.

93. The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) will

submit its periodic Reports after every two weeks

to this Court and a final Report will be submitted

within sixty days from its constitution. This Court

will examine the matter of disqualification of

Respondent No.1 on the basis of such Reports

and if at any point of time, it is found necessary

that Respondent No.1 and Respondents No.6 to

10 or any one or all of them or any other person

may be summoned for recording of the statement

before this Court, appropriate orders may be

passed.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 351
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

94. If the conclusions of the investigation by

the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), so justify,

appropriate orders may be passed for initiation of

criminal proceedings under Section 9(a)(v) of the

NAB Ordinance against the private Respondents,

some of them or any other person, as the case

may be.

Judge
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 352
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. I have had the privilege of

going through the scholarly judgments handed down by my

learned brothers Ejaz Afzal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ. I

agree with the conclusions drawn by them. However,

considering the importance of the issues raised in the

matter, I have recorded my own opinion.

2. Through these petitions filed under Article 184(3)

of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), the Petitioners

seek inter alia a declaration from this Court to the effect

that Respondents No.1, 9 and 10 are disqualified to be

Members of the National Assembly. Directions are also

sought to Respondents No.2, 3, 4 & 5 to discharge their

legal obligation with reference to the allegations of

involvement of Respondents No.1, 9 & 10 in corruption,

money laundering and owning assets beyond their known

means.

3. The allegations stem from information coming

into public domain on the basis of documents recovered

from the database of Mossack Fonseca, a law firm operating

in Panama. It appears to be engaged in the business of

setting up and structuring offshore companies. The

documents were placed on the website of International

Council of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and are commonly

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 353
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

referred to as the Panama Papers. The case of the

petitioners is primarily based on information and documents

downloaded from the said website. It is alleged that

Respondent No.1 who is the Prime Minister of Pakistan and

members of his family i.e. Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 namely

Mrs. Maryam Safdar, Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Mr.

Hasan Nawaz Sharif own various offshore companies

including Nescol Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited.

These companies are registered in the British Virgin Islands

(BVI) and are special purposes vehicles for ownership of four

residential flats bearing Nos.16, 16-a, 17 & 17-a, Avenfield

House No.118, Park Lane, London (Mayfair Properties). It is

also alleged that the properties in question, ostensibly

owned by Respondent No.6, are in fact owned by

Respondent No.1, in addition to other businesses being run

by Respondents No.6 & 7. Such assets and businesses

having been acquired / started when Respondents No.6 & 7

were in their early 20s and had no independent sources of

income. Respondent No.6 is the daughter of Respondent

No.1 and is his dependent and has been so declared in his

Wealth Tax Returns of 2011. However, Respondent No.1 had

failed to declare assets of his dependent daughter in the

Nomination Papers filed by him for his election to the

National Assembly his annual Statement of Assets and

Liabilities required to be filed under the Representation of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 354
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

People Act, 1976 (RoPA) and the Rules framed thereunder as

well his Tax Returns. Such concealment of facts, it is averred

must lead to his disqualification in terms of the RoPA read

with Article 62 of the Constitution. It is further alleged that

Respondents No.7 & 8 who are sons of Respondent No.1 are

also conducting businesses through offshore companies.

The sources of funding for the Mayfair Properties as well as

other businesses of the children of Respondent No.1 has

been questioned.

4. Additionally, it has been alleged that Respondent

No.1 is involved in tax evasion and has failed to declare/pay

tax on amounts received by way of purported gifts in

foreign exchange from Respondent No.7. It has also been

alleged that when the aforesaid information was highlighted

by the local as well as the international media, Respondent

No.1 addressed the Nation on the television on 05.04.2016

and also delivered a speech in the National Assembly on

16.05.2016 to clear his position. He denied having

committed any wrongdoing and took the stance that his

children were doing legitimate businesses with legitimate

funds and that the Mayfair Properties had been acquired

with funds generated from business transactions in

Dubai/Saudi Arabia. He also stated that all requisite

information/records were available and will be produced

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 355
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

before the appropriate fora as and when required.

5. Considering that ownership of the offshore

companies/Mayfair Properties had not been denied and

prima facie questions of public importance had been raised,

we entertained these petitions.

6. Notices were issued to the Respondents who filed

their concise statements/supplementary concise statements

and a large number of documents during the course of

proceedings before us. These have been carefully examined

and considered. The stance taken by Respondents No.1, 6, 7

& 8 with regard to their businesses, Mayfair

Properties/offshore companies and source of funds was

more or less the same as taken by Respondent No.1 in his

aforesaid speeches. However, during the course of

proceedings before us, the above stated position was

abruptly changed and a position was taken that Mayfair

Properties had been acquired by Respondent No.7 by way of

a business settlement with Al Thani Family of Qatar (Thani

Family) with whom the late father of Respondent No.1 had

longstanding personal and business relationship. It was

therefore stated that proceeds of sale of family business of

Respondent No.1 in Dubai (Gulf Steel) had been invested in

the real estate business of the Thani Family in Qatar which

culminated in the afore-noted settlement/acquisition of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 356
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

shares in the offshore companies/Mayfair Properties. A letter

dated 05.11.2016 purportedly written by Sheikh Hamad bin

Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (Sheikh Hamad) was initially

produced before us. This was followed by another letter

dated 22.12.2016. Likewise, to counter the allegation that

Respondent No.6 owned the Mayfair Properties and that

Respondent No.1 had failed to disclose the same in his

nomination papers, a declaration of trust document dated

2/4 February, 2006 was also produced before us claiming

that Respondent No.6 was a trustee of Respondent No.7 to

hold bearer shares in the Nescol Limited and Nielsen

Enterprises Limited, the special purposes vehicles which

own the Mayfair Properties. The parties have attached

copies of various other documents with their respective

pleadings.

7. Syed Naeem Bukhari, learned ASC, appearing for

the petitioner in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 has

made the following submissions to support his case:-

i. That Respondent No.1 (Mian Muhammad

Nawaz Sharif) addressed the Nation on
05.04.2016 in response to the allegations that
he and his family had indulged in money
laundering & corruption and had illegally
acquired assets and properties including
Mayfair Properties which were the subject
matter of Panama Papers. In the said speech,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 357
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

he had stated that when he and his family

were forcibly exiled, his father (Mian
Muhammad Sharif) had set up a Steel Mill in
Saudi Arabia. Funds for the said project were
provided by the Saudi Banks by way of loans.
A few years later the said Steel Mills along
with all its assets, was sold and the funds thus
generated were utilized by his two sons
namely Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Hassan
Nawaz Sharif i.e. Respondents No.7 & 8
herein, for setting up their new businesses. It
was disclosed by Respondent No.1 that
Respondent No.8 had been residing in London
since 1994 while Respondent No.7 was
residing in Saudi Arabia since the year 2000.
In this regard, the learned counsel has pointed
out that although it was claimed by
Respondent No.1 that the factory in Saudi
Arabia was set up with loans obtained from
Saudi Banks, no documentation to
substantiate such assertion has been placed
on record. Further, there is neither any
mention of the sale price for which the factory
in Saudi Arabia was sold nor has any
document been placed on record in this
regard. He has also emphasized the fact that
there is no mention of any investment in
Dubai in the afore-noted address of
Respondent No.1. He has also stressed the
point that no money trail has been shown
either orally or through any documentation.

ii. That Respondent No.1 thereafter addressed

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 358
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the National Assembly on 16.05.2016. In this

address, he (Respondent No.1) improved upon
his earlier speech and gave further details
regarding the sources of funds allegedly
generated from business of his family. It was
stated by Respondent No.1 that in April, 1980
a Steel Mill operating under the name and
style of Gulf Steel Mill which had earlier been
established by his father with funds obtained
from Banks in Dubai was sold for a sum of
Rs.33.37 Million Dirhams equivalent to 9
Million US$. Respondent No.1 stated that
funds generated from the sale of Gulf Steel
Mill also helped his family in setting up the
factory at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

iii. That it was claimed by Respondent No.1 that

the factory at Jeddah was sold in June, 2005
for a sum of 64 Million Riyals equivalent to 17
Million US$. The Respondent No.1 also claimed
that all records regarding Dubai and Jeddah
factories were available and would be
presented as and when required by the
competent authorities. He further claimed that
the above were the sources and means from
which the Mayfair Properties were purchased.

iv. That Respondent No.7 in an interview,

transcript whereof has been placed on record
through CMA No.7319 of 2016 filed on
07.11.2016, took the stance that the source of
funds for purchase of the Mayfair Properties
was the investment made by his late
grandfather (Mian Muhammad Sharif) in the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 359
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

year 1980 from the sale proceeds of his steel

business in Dubai. The petitioner urges that
there is a clear contradiction between the
statements of Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No.7 in so far as Respondent No.1
claims that the funds generated from sale of
Gulf Steel Mill were utilized in setting up of the
Steel Mill in Jeddah while Respondent No.7
claims that the said funds were invested and
utilized for purchase of the Mayfair Properties.

v. Learned ASC has vehemently argued that

neither Respondent No.1 nor Respondents
No.6 to 8 have disclosed the true facts before
this Court. He maintains that the documents
presented before this Court including the
Tripartite Contract of 1978 for sale of shares
clearly indicate that Gulf Steel Mill was a
financial disaster, there were huge
outstanding dues and the entire sale price
received from sale of 75% shares in the
company was utilized in clearing the amounts
owed to the creditors. He further submits that
even after settlement of dues of BCCI, there
were other liabilities in substantial amounts
which were required to be cleared by the
family of Respondent No.1. It appears that the
said liabilities may have been cleared,
however, the resources which were utilized for
such clearance are shrouded in mystery. The
learned counsel maintains that the only logical
explanation for settlement of the dues is that
this was done through undeclared wealth.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 360
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

vi. That the Mayfair Properties were held in the

names of two offshore companies namely
Nescol Limited and Nielsen Enterprises
Limited. The beneficial owner of the properties
in question was Respondent No.6 who is the
daughter of Respondent No.1 and she at all
relevant times was and continues to be a
dependent of the latter. As such he was
obliged to declare her beneficial ownership of
the Mayfair Properties not only in his Wealth
Statements but also in his Nomination Papers
filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan
for contesting the General Election, 2013 and
his annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Adds that by concealment, withholding and
mis-declaration made by him in his
Nomination Papers, the Respondent No.1 had
been proved to be neither sadiq nor
Ameen and rendered himself liable to be
disqualified in terms of Article 62 read with
Article 63 of the Constitution.

vii. Learned counsel submits that Nescol Limited

was incorporated in British Virgin Islands (BVI)
as an International Business Company on
27.01.1993. It holds Flats No.17 & 17-a, and
Nielsen Holdings Limited later renamed as
Nielsen Enterprises Limited was registered on
04.08.1994 and holds Flats No.16 & 16-a. On
22.11.1994 bearer certificate of Nielsen
Enterprises Limited was issued in the
denomination of 1US$ which was
subsequently cancelled. Likewise a bearer
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 361
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

certificate was also issued by Nescol Limited

which was also cancelled. Subsequently, in
2006 shares were issued in favour of Minerva
Nominees Limited which became the
shareholder of both BVI Companies. He has
argued that holding of shares in the said
companies was changed from time to time in
order to hide the real ownership of the
companies beneath layers of shadow
companies.

viii. Learned counsel has vehemently questioned

the letters produced on behalf of Respondents
No.6 to 8. The said letters which were
purportedly issued by Sheikh Hamad on
05.11.2016 and 22.12.2016 (Qatari Letters)
state that since his father had a business
relationship with the father of Respondent
No.1 and grandfather of Respondents No.6 to
8 (Mian Muhammad Sharif), the funds
generated from sale of 25% shares in the Gulf
Steel in the sum of 12 Million Dirhams, were
invested in the business of the Thani family in
Qatar which had instructions from Mian
Muhammad Sharif that the beneficiary of
these funds will be his grandson namely
Respondent No.7. According to the Qatari
letters, in the year 2006 accounts of the
business were settled, and by way of
settlement it is claimed that bearer
certificates of Nescol Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises Limited, the two companies which
held the Mayfair Properties, were handed over
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 362
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to the representative of Respondent No.7. He

further submits that the letters of the Sheikh
Hamad are fabrications and concoctions, the
same have been produced by way of an
afterthought in order to cover up the
illegalities and money laundering. He has
been pointed out that even otherwise, there
was no mention of any business in Qatar
either in the address of the Respondent No.1
to the Nation or in his speech in the National
Assembly a month later.

ix. The learned ASC submits that the Mayfair

Properties were purchased by the family of
Respondent No.1 between the period from
1993-96 through funds which were not
legitimate and were the result of corrupt and
illegal practices including money laundering.
He has also drawn our attention to the Wealth
Statements of Respondent No.6 for the year
2011, in Column No.12 at page 68 of CP#29 of
2016 under title Assets, if any, standing in
the name of spouse, minor children & other
dependents whereof Respondent No.1 had
mentioned that there was land in the name of
his daughter Maryam Safdar (Respondent
No.6) valuing Rs.24,851,526/-. He has further
pointed out that Respondent No.1 by way of
gift received a sum of Rs.129,836,905/- in the
year 2011 from Respondent No.7. Out of the
said amount, a sum of Rs.31,700,000/- was
gifted by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.6
while an amount of Rs.19,459,440/- was
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 363
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

presumably gifted to his son Hasan Nawaz.

Further stated that 13 Crores of Rupees were
received by Respondent No.1 from his sons
between 2011 to 2016. He submits that the
sources of funds to finance business of
Respondents No.7&8 are also shrouded in
mystery. It has nowhere been explained how
Respondents No.7&8 had such large sums of
money available to them which could finance
the steel business of Respondent No.7 in
Saudi Arabia and real estate business of
Respondent No.8 in the UK.

x. That neither the Respondent No.6 nor

Respondent No.9 who is her husband have
any independent source of income and are
solely dependent upon funds made available
to them by Respondent No.1 and Respondents
No.7 & 8 by way of gifts. He therefore
maintains that for all intents and purposes,
Respondent No.6 continues to be a dependent
of Respondent No.1. Adds that having
concealed the said facts and failed to disclose
beneficial ownership of the Mayfair Properties,
Respondent No.1 has been guilty of
concealment, mis-declaration and dishonesty,
and is therefore liable to be disqualified from
being Member of the Parliament and holding
the office of Prime Minister.

xi. That between the years 2011-15 Respondent

No.1 received an aggregated sum of
Rs.741,298,44/- by way of gifts from
Respondents No.7 & 8. He argues that the said
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 364
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

gifts constituted income from other sources

and were taxable. But he did not pay any
taxes on the said gifts which exposes him to
the mischief of Article 63 of the Constitution.
He further maintains that there is no
indication regarding the sources and the
accounts from which Respondents No.7 & 8
remitted such huge amounts to Respondent
No.1. In this regard, reference has been made
to Section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance,
2001.

xii. As far as Respondent No.6 is concerned,

learned counsel has reiterated that neither
she nor her husband have any independent
source of income. Her Income Tax
Returns/Wealth Statements show ownership of
assets either by way of gifts or loans without
disclosing any other source of income. He
therefore relies on the meaning of word
dependent as defined in Oxford English
Dictionary and submits that a person who
relies on another for support and sustenance
falls within the definition of dependent.

xiii. That since Respondent No.6 is a dependent of

Respondent No.1 he was obliged to disclose
her beneficial ownership of Nescol Limited
and Nielsen Enterprises Limited, BVI
Companies which own the Mayfair Properties.
He relies on a letter issued by Errol George
dated 12.06.2012 and the replies sent by
Mossack Fonseca which state that the
beneficial ownership of both Companies is
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 365
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

with Respondent No.6.

xiv. Learned counsel has raised serious doubts

about the Trust Deed dated 02.02.2006 signed
by Respondent No.6 on the same date and
Respondent No.7 on 04.02.2006 according to
which Respondent No.7 is the beneficial owner
of both Companies and hence the Mayfair
Properties are held by Respondent No.6 on
trust for Respondent No.7. Further submits
that the said document is fake, fabricated and
not worthy of any reliance.

xv. Learned ASC has also drawn our attention to

an interview given by Respondent No.8
namely Hassan Nawaz to a British Journalist in
November, 1999. In the said interview,
Respondent No.8 allegedly stated that he was
residing in one of the Mayfair Properties on
rent; was a student and earning nothing; was
not aware who was the real owner; and rent
for the said properties was sent to him by his
family from Pakistan. Submits that
Respondent No.8 became a Director of
Flagship Investments Limited on 12.04.2001
much before the sale of Al Azizia Steel Mills,
Jeddah in June 2005 injecting substantial sums
of money in his company.

xvi. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that

while Respondent No.1 asserts that it was the
sale of Saudi factory in June 2005 which
provided funds for his sons to start their
businesses yet the interview given by his son
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 366
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to the British Journalist completely negates

that story. Adds that even otherwise, there is
no explanation of funds becoming available to
Respondent No.8 for setting up of Flagship
Investments Limited and availability of funds
to undertake real estate business in the UK.
He therefore submits that stories given by
Respondent No.1 in his first and second
addresses and the interviews given by
members of his family to various media
outlets clearly contradict each other.

xvii. Referring to the Trust Deed whereby

Respondent No.6 has been shown as trustee
on behalf of Respondent No.7, it is argued that
the document in question has neither been
stamped nor attested as required by law.
Further, creation of the Trust was never
communicated to Mossack Fonseca which on
22.06.2012 confirmed, after making the
requisite inquiries that Respondent No.6 was
the beneficial owner of Nescol Limited and
Nielsen Enterprises Limited.

xviii. Learned ASC has also drawn our attention to a

copy of judgment and decree passed by the
London High Court on 18.03.1999 against
Hudaibiya Paper Mills Limited (HPML). He
submits that Respondents No.6 to 8 are
included in the list of Directors of the said
Company which borrowed funds from Al-
Tawfeeq Investment Company in London.
HPML defaulted on its loan which led Al-
Tawfeeq Investment Company to file a suit for
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 367
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

recovery of its dues which was decreed. Under

the decree, Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mian
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Muhammad
Abbas Sharif and HPML were required to pay
about 34 Million US$ to the decree holder. The
said amount was not paid which led to an
order dated 05.11.1999 whereby attachment
of the Mayfair Properties was ordered for
recovery of the decretal amount. Further, the
record indicates that the attachment was not
implemented in so far as the amount of 34
Million US$ was apparently paid which led to
an application for withdrawal of caution /
attachment on the aforesaid flats by the Bank.
Learned counsel submits that in case the
family of Respondent No.1 did not have any
right, title or interest in the flats in question
why and from what source the decretal
amount was paid leading to withdrawal of the
caution and release of charge on the Mayfair
Properties.

xix. That the debacle of HPML also led to filing of a

Reference by the National Accountability
Bureau (NAB) against the family of
Respondent No.1 in the Accountability Court.
However, the said Reference lay dormant for
about 10 years. In the said Reference, a
statement was made by Respondent No.10
disclosing details of money laundering on part
of Respondent No.1 and his family. However,
the said Reference was quashed by the Lahore
High Court without leaving an option with the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 368
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

NAB to reinvestigate the matter. He maintains

that the Chairman, NAB Respondent No.2
herein in connivance with the private
Respondents did not challenge the order of
the Lahore High Court before this Court and
deliberately allowed the judgment of the High
Court to remain in the field in order to help the
accused. He therefore seeks a direction to the
Chairman, NAB to perform his duties in
accordance with law.

xx. Learned counsel maintains that Respondent

No.1 has neither been just nor honest to the
Nation either in his speech on the electronic
media or on the floor of the National
Assembly. That a series of false statements
made by the Prime Minister stand established
which shows that he is neither just nor honest
and is disqualified to be a Member of the
Parliament or to hold the office of the Prime
Minister. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relies on Workers Party
Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012
SC 681), Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2011 SC 997) and All Pakistan
Newspapers Society v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2012 SC 1).

xxi. That the Prime Minister has evaded taxes

which were payable on gifts received by him
from his sons. He is therefore hit by the
provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution.
Further, that Respondent No.1 has been
untruthful in denying that Respondent No.6
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 369
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

was his dependent and has failed to disclose

his beneficial ownership of the Mayfair
Properties. He points out that Respondents
No.6 to 8 repeatedly contradicted Respondent
No.1 and have come out with totally
contradictory versions in the matter. He
maintains that the letters issued by the Sheikh
Hamad dated 05.11.2016 and 22.12.2016 are
desperate attempts to cover up money
laundering and acquisition of assets with such
money. Even otherwise, the document in
question is not worthy of reliance.

xxii. That the Mayfair Properties were purchased by

the Prime Minister and his family in 1993/96,
their purchase could only materialize through
money laundering which stands established
from the record. He finally submits that
Respondent No.1 has evaded taxes on a sum
of Rs.74 Crores which was admittedly received
as gifts from his sons which renders him
ineligible to be Member of the Parliament or to
hold the office of the Prime Minister.

xxiii. Lastly, he submits that the Federal Board of

Revenue (FBR) as well as the NAB should be
directed to proceed against Respondent No.1
in accordance with law.

8. Mr. Muhammad Taufiq Asif, learned ASC for the

petitioner in Constitution Petition No.3 of 2017, has

submitted that a declaration was being sought to the effect

that Respondent No.1 was not sadiq and ameen in terms of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 370
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Article 62 read with Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this regard, he has made the

following submissions:-

i. That the contents of speech of Respondent

No.1 in the National Assembly on 16.05.2016
were misleading and incorrect. That twice in
the said speech it was stated that he
(Respondent No.1) and his family had been
sent into forced exile against their will and
that subsequent events had proved that he
(Respondent No.1) had left the country
voluntarily as a result of a deal. At this
juncture, it was pointed out to the learned
counsel that the question whether or not
Respondent No.1 had been sent into exile
against his will had been dealt with by this
Court in a judgment reported as Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif v. State [PLD 2002 SC 814] in
which while dealing with the question of
condonation of delay this Court recorded a
finding that Respondent No.1 had been exiled
against his will and was not allowed to return.
This being the position, in collateral
proceedings, we were not inclined to revisit
and reexamine the aforesaid findings of this
Court.

ii. That Respondent No.1 had made certain

admissions in his speech in so far as he
admitted that Gulf Steel was established in
UAE and the same was sold in 1980 for a sum
of US $ 9 Million. He submits that no
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 371
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

explanation has been forthcoming regarding

source of the funds which were utilized to set
up the said project. He further submits that
there is no money trail showing how the sale
proceeds were moved from UAE to Qatar and
Saudi Arabia.

iii. The learned counsel has pointed out that

Respondent No.1 had made a categoric
statement that the funds generated from sale
of Steel Mill in Saudi Arabia were utilized for
purchase of the Mayfair Properties. In this
regard, he (Respondent No.1) also made a
statement in the National Assembly during his
address on 16.05.2016 that all relevant
records regarding sale of Gulf Steel and
Jeddah business were available and will be
produced before the competent fora.
However, according to the learned counsel,
the said record has not been produced by the
Respondent No.1.

iv. The learned ASC has contended that the Prime

Minister in his address had stated that neither
he nor his family would claim any immunity
before any forum. However, contrary to his
commitment, he has claimed privilege under
Article 66 of the Constitution. In this regard,
he has relied on Zahur Ilahi v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto [PLD 1975 SC 383 @ 395] and Masroor
Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee [PLD 1998 SC
823] to argue that immunity/privilege can be
claimed in accordance with law and the
Constitution; no one is above the law; and in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 372
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

case, the Respondent No.1 had committed

any illegality or made a false statement during
his address in the National Assembly, he can
neither claim any immunity nor privilege.

v. Learned counsel has further contended that

Respondent No.1 had opted to defend himself
and his family against the allegations coming
to light on the basis of documents discovered
through the Panama Papers. That Respondent
No.1 had claimed that all transactions
including purchase of Mayfair Properties were
legitimate and all requisite record would be
produced which has not been done by him or
his family. He maintains that after having lied
to the Parliament he cannot claim immunity or
privilege. In addition privilege can be claimed
only in situations where a statement is made
while participating in the parliamentary
business. However, in the instant case, the
statement was made by the Prime Minister in
his personal capacity to explain transactions
involving his family which had nothing to do
with any matter involving parliamentary
business. He, therefore, submits that no
privilege can be claimed by Respondent No.1
for his private actions.

vi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

further argued that Respondent No.1 had
taken two Oaths. One as a Member of the
National Assembly and the other as Prime
Minister of Pakistan. In both the said oaths, he
had sworn to perform his functions honestly,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 373
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to the best of his ability, faithfully, in

accordance with the law and the Constitution
and the Rules of Business of the National
Assembly. Further he had sworn to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution. He
further maintains that in terms of Article 5 of
the Constitution loyalty to the State is the
basic duty of every citizen. He, therefore,
submits that by failing to disclose the correct
facts and producing the relevant records
before the Parliament or before this Court,
Respondent No.1 had been guilty of
dishonesty giving preference to his personal
interests over and above the national interests
and as such he has not only violated his oath
of office but has also been guilty of dishonesty
which attracts the penal consequences of
Article 62 read with Article 63 of the
Constitution.
vii. Learned ASC has also produced a copy of the
order of the day issued by the Secretariat of
National Assembly for 16.05.2016 to point out
that the speech of Respondent No.1 was not
on the agenda of the National Assembly for
that day. He has also referred to Rules 31 (1),
50 & 51 of the Rules of Procedure & Conduct
of Business in the National Assembly, 2007 to
argue that since the speech of the Prime
Minister was not a part of the order of the day
it cannot be termed as participation in the
parliamentary business. Secondly, no privilege
can be claimed for a statement made by
Respondent No.1 of his own accord and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 374
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

volition before the National Assembly. Reliance

in this regard has been placed on Zahur Ilahi
v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [PLD 1975 SC 383];
Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee [PLD
1998 SC 823] and Iftikhar Ahmad Khan Bar v.
Chief Election Commissioner [PLD 2010 SC
817 @ 826 (para 14)]. He also submits that it
has repeatedly been held by this Court that
there is sanctity attached to the parliamentary
proceedings and business but such sanctity
does not extend to personal matters
voluntarily discussed in the Assembly
chambers without being part of the
parliamentary business.

viii. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to

Article 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 to argue that burden of proof as to any
particular fact lies on the person who wishes
the Court to believe in its existence, unless it
is provided by any law that the proof of that
fact shall lie on any other person. He submits
that as a whistleblower the only responsibility
on the shoulders of the petitioner was to bring
to the notice of this Court certain facts of
public importance where-after the burden of
proof was on the Respondent No.1 to establish
that he had neither acted dishonestly nor in
any other manner that would expose him to
the penal consequences of Article 62 read
with Article 63 of the Constitution. Reference
in this regard has been placed on Workers
Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 375
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2012 SC 681 (para 32)].

ix. It is further contended that under Article

184(3) of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of
this Court is in the nature of inquisitorial
proceedings and this Court can delve into the
arena of any fact finding so as to promote
public interest. In support of his contention,
the learned counsel has relied on Watan Party
v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2011 SC 997 @
paras 50 & 52]; Philips Electrical Industries of
Pakistan Ltd. V Pakistan [2000 YLR 2724];
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union
of India [AIR 1982 SC 1473]; Workers Party
Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2012
SC 681]; Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v.
Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2012 SC 774 @
806 (paras 14 & 15)]; and Watan Party v.
Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2012 SC 292 @
365].

x. The learned ASC has also referred to Articles

53 & 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
1984 to argue that facts within the special
knowledge of a person need to be proved by
him. He maintains that admittedly, the Mayfair
Properties are held by offshore companies
which are owned and controlled by the
children of Respondent No.1. Documents and
records relating to the said properties are not
and cannot be available to the petitioner.
However, the Respondents have access to
such records and documents and are therefore
liable to produce the same before this Court.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 376
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

He further submits that this Court is neither

averse to nor is its jurisdiction restricted in
relation to undertaking factual inquiries or
even recording evidence in order to uncover
the truth to do complete justice. Reliance in
this regard has been placed on Pakistan
Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan
[PLD 2007 SC 642].

xi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

referred to Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf,
Chief Executive of Pakistan [PLD 2000 SC 869]
and read certain portions appearing at page
1207 thereof to argue that although there
were specific allegations relating to ownership
of the Mayfair Properties, Mr. Khalid Anwar,
learned Sr.ASC, who allegedly represented
Respondent No.1 in the said matter did not
specifically rebut the said allegations. He
submits that failure to rebut the allegations
amounts to admission and necessary legal
consequence for the same should follow. At
this stage, the record of the case was
summoned and seen by the Court and it was
observed that Respondent No.1 was neither a
party to the said proceedings nor was Mr.
Khalid Anwar representing him in the said
case. Although in one of the related matters,
Respondent No.1 was a party, however, the
judgment in Zafar Ali Shahs case (supra) did
not contain any finding recorded by this Court
regarding the allegations involving ownership
of the Flats in question. Confronted with this
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 377
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

position, the learned counsel for the petitioner

did not further press the point.

xii. The learned ASC has argued that it was an

admitted position that the London High Court
had passed a decree in the case of HPML as
well as Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mian
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and Mian
Muhammad Abbas Sharif. He further submits
that documents available on record also
indicate that the said properties were
attached under orders of the London High
Court. However, such attachment was
removed apparently on satisfaction of the
decree. He maintains that there is no evidence
on record or money trail explaining how the
decree in access of US$ 34 Million was
satisfied. He further submits that this raises a
serious question which needs to be answered
by Respondent No.1. The learned counsel has
also submitted that in his speech in the
National Assembly on 16.05.2016, Respondent
No.1 had given certain facts relating to sale of
the Gulf Steel at Dubai and thereafter setting
up and sale of Steel Mills at Jeddah. However,
no further details were provided either in the
National Assembly or before this Court to
indicate how the sale proceeds were utilized
and whether or not the amount generated
from the said sales were utilized for purchase
of the Mayfair Properties.

xiii. The learned ASC further maintains that the

petitioner has discharged the onus by alleging
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 378
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that the Mayfair Properties are owned by

Respondent No.1 and now the onus is on him
to establish either that the properties in
question were not owned by him or that the
same were not procured with funds which
were illegally transferred from Pakistan to
other countries. He also maintains that in
order to establish the truth, this Court has the
power to record evidence and even summon
the Prime Minister if the need arises in
exercise of its powers under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution.

9. Mr. Ehsan ud Din Sheikh, learned ASC was

allowed on his request to make certain additional

submissions on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that

the powers being exercised by this Court were inquisitorial

in nature and the Court was expected to act as Prosecutor,

Defender and Judge at the same time. He was, however,

reminded that inquisitorial jurisdiction of this Court was to

be understood in the context of being different from

adversarial proceedings and the same was not necessarily

to be equated with the inquest Tribunals set up in different

countries including Spain for special reasons. He, however,

referred to the definition of inquisitorial proceedings as

given in Blacks Law Dictionary to argue that the jurisdiction

of this Court extends to taking such steps as may be

necessary to uncover the true facts. He further argued that

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 379
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.6 was a dependent of Respondent No.1 who

had failed to disclose her status in his Nomination Papers

filed with the Election Commission during the General

Elections of 2013. He was therefore liable to be disqualified.

The learned counsel placed on record photocopies of the

definition of dependent taken from Oxford English

Dictionary, Merriam Webster Dictionary and some legal

treatises.

10. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, petitioner in person in

Constitution Petition No.30 of 2016 also addressed the

following arguments:

i. He referred to the speeches of Respondent

No.1 to submit that he had not disclosed the
correct information either before the people of
the country or before this Court. He
maintained that there were contradictions in
the statements made by Respondent No.1, his
sons and wife which show that he had been
untruthful and was liable to be disqualified in
terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. He
further submitted that the privilege claimed
by Respondent No.1 in terms of Article 66 of
the Constitution was not available to him in
view of the fact that he had raised a private
matter on the floor of the house which was
neither in the agenda nor a part of the
business of the house. In this context, he
relied upon Chaytor v. House of Lords (2010
UK SC 52 (paras 62, 118, 121 & 122) and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 380
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Canada v. Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC

30 (paras 29, 37 to 40 & 46 to 48). He also
referred to Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir
Cowasjee [PLD 1998 SC 823 @ 1018] and
Zahur Ilahi v. Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [PLD 1975
SC 383]. He made reference to a portion of
the judgment handed down by Hamdoor ur
Rehman, J in Masroor Ahsans case spelling
out the parameters of immunity / privilege.

ii. He further submitted that in terms of Article

184(3) of the Constitution, this Court can mold
the relief and can grant the reliefs which have
not even been prayed for. He maintained that
this Court has to be dynamic in rendering a
judgment to do complete justice in the facts
and circumstances of this case. He places
reliance on Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of
Pakistan [PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416], Nasir
Ali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2013
Supreme Court 568], Muhammad Ashraf
Tiwana v. Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1159),
Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2012 Supreme Court 132) and Mehmood
Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD
2012 Supreme Court 1054).

iii. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed further submitted that

the letters allegedly issued by Sheikh Hamad
are contradictory and it is apparent that by
issuing successive letters an attempt has
been made to fill the gaps and answer the
questions raised by this Court. He pointed out
that in an earlier case reported as Muhammad
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 381
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Nawaz Sharif v. State (PLD 2010 Lahore 81),

the same person had come to the rescue of
Respondent No.1. He further submitted that
Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi had also
improved his statement as in his first affidavit
there was no mention of the Qatari
investment while in the second one after
certain questions were raised by this Court,
the story of investment of 22 Million Dirhams
in Qatar and names of the persons to whom
the said money had allegedly been handed
over for investment in the real estate business
of Thani Family in Qatar were added. He
maintained that if the two letters were to be
disbelieved the entire defence of the
Respondents would fall to the ground. He also
submitted that burden of proof that the
Mayfair Properties were acquired through
lawful means was upon the Respondents who
have failed to discharge such onus.

11. Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned ASC appearing

for Respondent No.1 (Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif), made

the following submissions:-

i. At the very outset, learned counsel has read

the prayer clauses of Constitution Petition
No.29 of 2016 and submitted that Respondent
No.1 does not and never had any company
registered in the BVI or any other safe heaven.
Further, he was not a Director / Shareholder or
beneficial owner of any such company. He
submits that the grounds on which
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 382
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disqualification of Respondent No.1 is sought

can be broadly categorized into following
categories:

(a) Address of Respondent No.1 to the

Nation on television on 05.04.2016;

(b) Speech made by Respondent No.1 on

the floor of the National Assembly on
16.05.2016.

ii. That the petitioner alleges that in the said

speeches Respondent No.1 had lied to the
Nation, in consequence of which he had
ceased to be honest and ameen in terms of
Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and was
therefore liable to be disqualified.

iii. That the second ground on which

disqualification has been sought is that
Respondent No.1 had received large sums of
money as gifts from Respondent No.7. The
said amounts were required to be treated as
other income within the contemplation of
Section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The
said amount was neither declared as such nor
was the requisite income tax paid on it.
Consequently, he was liable to be disqualified
in terms of Article 63(2)(o) of the Constitution.

iv. The learned counsel points out that the

treatment of any amount received by way of
gift is different depending upon whether or not
the donor has a tax number in terms of
Section 39 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
He submits that the petitioner has incorrectly
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 383
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

stated that Respondent No.7 does not have a

tax number. The factual position is that
Respondent No.7 has a tax number and
therefore any amount received from him by
Respondent No.1 by way of gift was exempt
from payment of income tax. He further
submits that Article 63 (1)(o) of the
Constitution is attracted only where
default/non-payment of government dues is
determined either by the competent
authorities or by a Court of law and after such
determination it remains unpaid.

v. The third ground for seeking disqualification is

that Respondent No.6 (Maryam Safdar) is a
dependent of Respondent No.1. Therefore,
assets of Respondent No.6 should have been
declared by Respondent No.1 in his
nomination papers for election to a seat in the
National Assembly from NA.120. In view of the
fact that Respondent No.1 had failed to
declare Respondent No.6 as his dependent
and to disclose her assets in his nomination
papers and annual statement of assets, the
disqualification clause of Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution was attracted. He submits that
Respondent No.6 has independent sources of
income and owns valuable immovable
property. Therefore, she cannot be termed as
a dependent of Respondent No.1.

vi. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1

while responding to the aforesaid allegations
has read the speech made by Respondent
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 384
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.1 to the Nation as well as his speech made

on the floor of the House. He has vehemently
denied the allegation that Respondent No.1
had lied either to the Nation or during his
address on the floor of the House. He submits
that the contents of the speeches are factually
correct in all respects including statements
relating to setting up of Gulf Steel Mill at
Dubai, its sale, the sale price, setting up of a
Steel Mill in Saudi Arabia in the year 2000, the
same having been set up from finances
provided by the Saudi Banks and sale of the
same at a price stated by Respondent No.1 in
his address. He has however stated that in
both the addresses, Respondent No.1 had
given a broad overview of the activities of his
family regarding a business which was set up
in the year 1937 prior to his birth on which, as
long as his father Mian Muhammad Sharif was
alive, he was Incharge and solely running the
business. He has further submitted that the
speeches made by Respondent No.1 were not
in the nature of an item wise response or an
affidavit of facts setting out in detail, in a
chronological order generation and use of the
funds as they were utilized and invested in the
lifetime of his father. The learned counsel has
also referred to the affidavit of Mian
Muhammad Tariq Shafi which has been placed
on record through CMA No.735 of 2016
narrating substantially the same facts. He
submits that Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi has
in his affidavit stated that the business in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 385
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Dubai had been set up by Mian Muhammad

Sharif in the name of Mian Muhammad Tariq
Shafi. The Tripartite Agreement for sale of Gulf
Steel was signed on behalf of Mian
Muhammad Tariq Shafi who received the sale
price in various tranches from Dubai and had
utilized the funds received according to the
instructions of Mian Muhammad Sharif. The
learned counsel has categorically stated that
Respondent No.1 was not a
Shareholder/Director/Guarantor of Gulf Steel
nor was he a recipient of the whole or any part
of the sale proceeds.

vii. It is further submitted that in the case of Al

Azizia Steel Mill in Saudi Arabia, the position
was the same. Respondent No.1 was not a
Director or Shareholder of the said company
nor did he receive any part of the sale
proceeds. He has stated that the facts known
to Respondent No.1 were shared in order to
give a broad overview of the business
activities of his family in which he was not
personally involved. Further, in case there was
any omission in the speeches the same was
not deliberate and could not furnish basis for
disqualification. There was neither any reason
nor intention to misstate the facts or provide
incorrect or wrong information either to the
Members of National Assembly or to the
citizens of the country.

viii. Learned counsel submits that in case an

elected Prime Minister is to be removed from
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 386
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

office, the Constitution and the law provide a

procedure for doing so namely a vote of no
confidence or a declaration by a Court of
competent jurisdiction in terms of Article 62(1)
(f) of the Constitution or on a judgment/order
to that effect being passed by the relevant
fora under the provisions of the RoPA. He
further submits that in terms of Article 63(2)
of the Constitution where a question arises
whether a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament) has become disqualified from
being a member, the Speaker may refer the
question to the Election Commission by way of
a Reference within 30 days, where after the
Election Commission has the jurisdiction to
decide whether or not the Member has
become disqualified to be a Member of the
Parliament. He submits that an application in
this regard relating to Respondent No.1 was
moved before the Speaker of the National
Assembly which was rejected on 02.09.2016.
The ruling of the Speaker has been challenged
before the Lahore High Court by way of Writ
Petition No.31193 of 2016 which is being
heard by the said High Court.

ix. The learned counsel has further stated that in

terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution
read with various provisions of the RoPA, a
declaration issued by a Court of competent
jurisdiction is required to the effect that a
holder of public office is not sagacious,
righteous, non-profligate, honest or ameen.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 387
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

He submits that there is no declaration

against Respondent No.1 in the field therefore,
he cannot be disqualified. He further submits
that in a large number of cases this Court has
upheld the decisions of Election Tribunals
and / or other Courts which have issued
declarations but has seldom entertained
matters in exercise of its powers under Article
184(3) of the Constitution and proceeded to
issue declarations and then disqualified the
holder of public office.

x. The learned counsel has relied upon

Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz
Ahmad Tarar (2016 SCMR 1); D.G. Customs
Valuation v. Trade International Lahore (2014
SCMR 15); Iqbal Ahmad Landrail v. Jamshed
Alam (PLD 2013 SC 179); Muhammad Khan
Junejo v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR
1328); 2013 SCMR 1279; Allah Dino Khan
Bhayo v. Election Commission of Pakistan
(2013 SCMR 1655); PLD 2013 SC 282;
Mudassar Qayyum Nahra v. Bilal Ijaz (2011
SCMR 80); Nasir Mehmood v. Imran Masood
(PLD 2010 SC 1089); Iftikhar Ahmad Khan Bar
v. Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 2010 SC
817); Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz
(PLD 2010 SC 828); Muhammad Khan Junejo v.
Fida Hussain Junejo (PLD 2004 SC 452) and
Aftab Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Ajmal (PLD
2010 SC 1066).

xi. On the basis of the afore-noted judgments,

the learned counsel has vehemently argued
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 388
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that a prior declaration / determination is

required before the holder of a public office
can be disqualified by this Court in exercise of
its powers under the Constitution. Referring to
the case of Mr. Yousuf Raza Gillani, Former
Prime Minister, he submits that the said case
originated from the NRO case reported as
Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2010 Supreme Court 265) in which a
direction was issued to the Federal
Government to write a letter to certain Swiss
authorities which was not complied with. A
five member Bench of this Court therefore
issued a notice to Mr. Gillani for contempt of
this Court where after, he was convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the
Court vide order dated 02.02.2012. However,
in view of the fact that the Speaker of the
National Assembly refused to send the matter
to the Election Commission for denotification
of Mr. Gillani, he was disqualified by this Court.
He therefore submits that the said case is
distinguishable on facts as well as the law and
cannot be used as a precedent in the instant
case.

xii. The learned counsel further submits that

another set of cases arose out of dual
nationality held by certain holders of public
offices, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J as he then
was in his judgment reported as Umar Ahmad
Ghumman v. Government of Pakistan (PLD
2002 Lahore 521) had held that a person
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 389
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

holding dual nationality could not hold a public

office. On the basis of aforesaid judgment
which had been upheld by this Court, various
petitions were entertained and holders of
public offices were either disqualified on
admitted facts and official documents or
where there was no written denial of the
allegations of dual nationality. In none of the
cases, did this Court investigate the
matter/held a factual inquiry, conduct a trial
and record findings of fact.

xiii. Making his submission with reference to

powers of this Court under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution, the learned counsel submits
that bulk of authorities and previous
judgments of this Court point towards prior
declaration by a Court of competent
jurisdiction before this Court can proceed to
disqualify the holder of a public office. He
further submits that in the limited number of
cases where such powers have been exercised
directly, the said course was adopted either
because there were admitted facts /
documents or there was no need to go into an
exercise of recording voluminous evidence.

xiv. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits

that the petitioner seeks disqualification of
Respondent No.1 on the basis of speeches
made on the television and on the floor of the
House. He maintains that in the first place it
has not been established that Respondent
No.1 had lied in either of the two speeches or
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 390
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

had made a false statement. If at all there was

any omission, the same cannot be termed as
a misstatement. He further submits that if a
comparison is to be made between the facts
narrated by Respondent No.1 in his speeches
and those disclosed by other members of his
family in their interviews which have appeared
on the Electronic and Print Media, the said
exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184 of
the Constitution because the same would
require examination of voluminous record and
an opportunity being provided to all
concerned to meet the allegations against
them.

xv. Without prejudice to the fact that Respondent

No.1 did not lie or make any false statement
in his speeches, the learned counsel submits
that the speech made by him before the
National Assembly is covered by the privilege
available to members of Parliament provided
under Article 66 of the Constitution. He
submits that the Constitution provides for
freedom of speech in the Parliament and
protects speeches made on the floor of the
House against liability in any proceedings in
any Court in respect of anything said by such
Member. Learned counsel maintains that
parliamentary privilege is a concept
recognized all over the world and it is an
accepted norm all over the world that
speeches made in the Parliament cannot be
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 391
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

used as evidence before any Court, authority

or Tribunal against the maker of such
speeches. In this regard, the learned ASC has
referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, Wade
& Bradley on Constitution and Administrative
Law; and case of Regina v. Chaytor [2010] UK
SC 52].

xvi. The learned counsel has also referred to

various judgments of the Indian Courts to
stress that parliamentary privilege protects
speeches made on the floor of the House
which cannot be used against the maker of
such speeches as evidence in any Court or
Tribunal. He further maintains that
parliamentary privilege is equally available to
all members of the Parliament and no
exception applies to the Prime Minister by
reason of his office.

xvii. The learned ASC for Respondent No.1 has next

taken up the allegation of tax evasion. He
submits that disqualification of Respondent
No.1 is sought on the basis of provisions of
Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution read with
Section 99 (1)(a)(d) of the RoPA. In this regard,
he submits that the petitioners have leveled
the following allegations against Respondent
No.1:-
a) That a sum of US$ 9 Million had been
received from sale of Gulf Steel Mill.
Respondent No.1 should have declared
the said sum in his Wealth Tax
Statement and paid wealth tax on the
same.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 392
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

b) The Wealth Tax Statements for the years

2011-15 were filed late by Respondent
No.1. The said act is an offence which
must lead to his disqualification.

c) Respondent No.1 had given gifts in the

sum of Rs.31,700,000/- to Respondent
No.6 and Rs.19,459,400/- to Respondent
No.8 which were sham transactions and
were not given through normal banking
channels.

d) That the gifts received by Respondent

No.1 from Respondent No.7 should have
been treated as income from other
sources and tax should have been paid
on the same.

xviii. As far as late filing of Wealth Tax Statements

is concerned, the learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 submits that the allegation
was utterly baseless in view of the fact that
the Wealth Tax Statements were filed on
29.11.2011 & 09.12.2012 which were well
within time. Even otherwise, he submits that
the said grounds were not pressed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in his
arguments and had abandoned the same. As
far as the question of disqualification in terms
of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution is
concerned, the learned counsel submits that it
is settled law that such disqualification cannot
be pressed into services unless there is a
finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction
that the holder of a public office had defaulted
in payment of government dues. He maintains
that there is nothing on record nor a finding
handed down by any Court, Tribunal or
authority that Respondent No.1 had
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 393
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

committed default of any nature involving

payment of government dues. In support of
his contentions, the learned counsel has relied
on National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile
Mills Ltd (PLD 2014 SC 283); Summit Bank
Limited v. Qasim and Co. (2015 SCMR 1341)
and Agril D. B. of Pak v. Sanaullah Khan (PLD
1988 SC 67).

xix. The learned counsel has further submitted

that the petitioner seeks disqualification of
Respondent No.1 in terms of clause 1 of his
prayer. However, in clause 6 of the prayer, he
seeks a direction to the FBR to reopen the Tax
Returns of Respondent No.6 and scrutinize the
same. On the basis of prayer clause 1 and
prayer clause 6, the learned counsel for
Respondent No.1 submits that if prayer clause
6 of the petitioner is granted, prayer No.1
cannot be granted. Likewise, he maintains
that prayer clause 6 itself shows that no
determination of government dues has been
undertaken by any competent Court, authority
or Tribunal. Further, if prayer clause 6 is
denied, the prayer clause 1 cannot be granted
either.

xx. As far as payment of wealth tax is concerned,

the learned counsel has argued that the
Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was repealed in 2003. In
terms of Sections 17 & 17A of the Wealth Tax
Act, a limitation of 4 to 5 years has been
provided within which Wealth Tax Officer can
reopen the Returns and make a determination
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 394
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

regarding short payment / default, if any. The

learned counsel submits that the period of
limitation has since expired and no officer or
machinery is available for implementation of
the Act. Even otherwise, relying on Section
6(a) of the General Clauses Act, the learned
counsel maintains that once a statute has
been repealed and during its subsistence no
liability has been determined, no such liability
can now be determined especially so where a
period of limitation as provided in the Act
itself has expired. He further maintains that
Respondent No.1 is to be judged on the same
standards as other citizens of the country and
he cannot be judged on any higher standard
by reason of the fact that he is the Prime
Minister of the country.

xxi. Learned counsel further submits that it is an

admitted fact that Gulf Steel was set up from
funds generated through loans obtained from
Banks. The Respondent No.1 was not a
Shareholder or Director or Guarantor of the
said business. Even otherwise, according to
the case of the petitioner himself, the sale of
said business did not generate any profits
which could have necessitated disclosure of
the same by the Respondent in any of his
Returns. He maintains that this is without
prejudice to the stance of Respondent No.1
that he had no nexus or connection with the
said businesses.

xxii. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 395
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

refers to paragraph No.18 (xxi) of Constitution

Petition No.29 of 2016 and submits that there
were assertions in the said paragraph, that a
sum of Rs.31,700,000/- had been gifted by
Respondent No.1 to Maryam Safdar
(Respondent No.6) and a sum of
Rs.19,459,400/- had been gifted by him to his
son Hassan Nawaz (Respondent No.8). He
further submits that Respondent No.1 admits
the said transactions and the same have duly
been reflected in the Return filed by him for
the financial year 2011. He also submits that
corresponding entries in the accounts
statement have been made which are being
placed on record. The said transactions were
undertaken through banking channels and the
allegation that the transactions were merely
devices to evade payment of income tax is
patently incorrect. He also submits that
various sums of money including a sum of
US$1,914,054/- received by Respondent No.1
from his son Hussain Nawaz which was duly
reflected in the Tax Returns of Respondent
No.1 for the year 2011. He submits that the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that amounts received by
Respondent No.1 by way of gift should have
been treated as income from other sources
and were therefore, liable to be taxed is not
supported by the law. In this regard the
learned counsel has drawn our attention to
Section 39(3) and (4) of the Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 which provides that where a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 396
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

person receives a gift through banking

channels from a person who has a National
Tax Number (NTN), he is not required to pay
tax on the amount received. He states that Mr.
Hussain Nawaz, despite being a non-resident,
possesses an NTN, therefore, the said gift
from him to Respondent No.1 is neither liable
to be treated as Income from Other Sources
nor is it taxable. Explaining the transaction,
the learned counsel submits that the funds
originated from Saudi Arabia which were sent
through banking channels to the account of
Respondent No.1 who encashed the same at
the official exchange rate of the State Bank of
Pakistan and the concerned Bank duly issued
a certificate of encashment to claim the
benefit of Section 111 of the Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance). He has also
referred to Section 111(4) of the Ordinance to
argue that no tax is payable on foreign
remittances received through banking
channels. Referring to the Tax Returns filed by
Respondent No.1, the learned counsel submits
that under the new tax regime under the
Ordinance a scheme of self-assessment was
introduced. An assessee can file his Return on
the basis of self-assessment with the Taxation
Officer under Section 114 of the Ordinance.
On expiry of the statutory period, the Return
so filed is treated as a Final Assessment Order
of the Commissioner by operation of law. He
submits that although the Taxation Officer has
the jurisdiction on receipt of definite
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 397
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

information regarding tax evasion to reopen

the matter, no such, definite information
was provided to the Taxation Officer that may
have furnished justification to reopen,
reexamine or re-scrutinize the Returns filed by
Respondent No.1. In support of his contention,
the learned counsel has relied on the cases of
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sindh
Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. [2002 SCMR 527 at
535(F)], Income-tax Officer v. Chappal Builders
[1993 SCMR 1108 at 1112 and 1113]; and
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sindh
Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. [2002 SCMR 527].

xxiii. The learned counsel further submits that

according to the law laid down by this Court,
tax evasion has to be specifically alleged and
proved, whereas the same cannot be
presumed. Reliance has been placed on the
case Federation of Pakistan v. Sindh High
Court Bar Association [PLD 2012 SC 1067 at
1071, 1072 and 1074]. He further submits
that the law discourages fishing and roving
inquiries and insists upon definite information
regarding tax evasion before the tax record of
an assessee can be reopened. Reference has
been made to the cases of Assistant Director,
Intelligence and Investigation v. M/s. B.R.
Herman [PLD 1992 SC 485 at 491 (C)] and Re
State of Norways Application (No. 1) [1989 1-
AER 661 at 684, 685 and 691].

xxiv. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1

further submits that the following amounts
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 398
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

were received by Respondent No.1 from Mr.

Hussain Nawaz from 2011 to 2014: -
i) Rs.129,836,905/- (Tax Year 2011);
ii) Rs.26,610,800/- (Tax Year 2012);
iii) Rs.190,445,024/- (Tax Year 2013); and
iv) Rs.197,499,348/- (Tax Year 2014)

xxv. He submits that all the aforesaid gifts were

sent and received through banking channels,
were duly declared to the authorities by filing
the requisite Returns and were not liable to any
tax in view of the fact that the same had been
sent by holder of a National Tax Number.
Consequently, there was neither concealment
nor tax evasion on the part of Respondent
No.1.

xxvi. Concluding his arguments on the question of

tax evasion, the learned counsel submits that
disqualification of Respondent No.1 is being
sought inter alia on the basis of Article 63(1)
(o) of the Constitution read with relevant
provisions of the RoPA. Both the said
provisions require liability of a person being
determined by a competent forum and such
determined liability remaining unpaid. He
submits that it is neither alleged nor
established from the record that any
determination of tax liability of Respondent
No.1 has been made by a competent forum
and that the same has remained unpaid. The
learned counsel submits that even otherwise
in prayer clause 6, the petitioner he has
admitted that no determination has so far
been made by the competent authorities
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 399
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

against Respondent No.1. As a necessary

corollary, it can safely be said that in the
absence of determination of liability regarding
payment of Government dues the provisions of
Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution cannot be
invoked.

xxvii. The learned ASC for Respondent No.1 has read

paragraph 18 (ix) and (xxiii) of the petition to
point out that it has been asserted in the said
paragraphs that, admittedly Ms. Maryam
Nawaz is a dependent of Respondent No.1. By
alleging that Respondent No.1 had failed to
disclose the said fact in his nomination papers
for the General Election, 2013, Respondent
No.1 was guilty of concealment and signing a
false declaration and was therefore, liable to
be disqualified. The learned counsel submits
that in the first place it is not admitted that
Respondent No.6 was / is a dependent of
Respondent No.1. He has taken us through the
Wealth Statement filed by Respondent No.1 for
the tax year 2011 which shows that land worth
Rs.24,851,526/- was shown to be held in the
name of Ms. Maryam Safdar, Respondent No.6
in the column for spouse, minor children and
other dependents. He submits that the land in
question was owned by Respondent No.1 and
was held in the name of Respondent No.6. In
the absence of any specific column to disclose
Benami transactions, the name of Respondent
No.6 was mentioned in Column No.12 which
deals with assets owned by spouse, minor
children and other dependents. He however,
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 400
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

maintains that merely by reason of the name

of Respondent No.6 being mentioned in
Column No.12 would not make her a
dependent especially so where the property
was clearly mentioned as being held in the
name of Respondent No.6. In order to
substantiate his contention, the learned
counsel has drawn our attention to Notification
dated 26.8.2015 issued by the Federal Board
of Revenue through which the anomaly in the
Wealth Statement Form was removed by
inserting a column for assets held in the name
of others. He has also referred to an opinion
rendered by A.F. Ferguson & Company,
Chartered Accountants which supports the
aforesaid contentions.

xxviii. He further submits that the price / value of the

land in question (Rs.24,851,526/-) was
subsequently paid by Respondent No.6 to
Respondent No.1 through banking channels
and the said transaction was duly reflected in
the wealth statement of Respondent No.6 for
the tax years 2011-13. Likewise since the
agricultural property in question had been
purchased by Respondent No.6 on payment of
sale consideration, the said property was not
mentioned in the wealth statement of
Respondent No.1 for the years 2012-13.
However, the cash received in lieu of transfer
of the property was duly reflected in the
accounts statement of Respondent No.1.

xxix. On the question whether or not Respondent

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 401
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.6 is a dependent of Respondent No.1,

learned counsel submits that Respondent No.6
has independent sources of income and
notwithstanding gifts made by Respondent
No.1 in favour of Respondent No.6 involving
cash and immovable properties, status of
Respondent No.6 as an independent adult has
remained unchanged. In this regard, he has
placed reliance on M. A. Faheemuddin Farhum
v. Managing Director/Member (Water) [2001
SCMR 1955], in which the definition of
dependent as given in the Blacks Law
Dictionary was cited with approval. The
learned counsel also refers to Ball, Decd., In
re. Hand v. Ball [1947 1 Chancery 228] and In
re Badens Trusts [1973 Chancery 9]. In the
earlier judgment, it was held that the word
dependent was a vague term and the Court
declined to define the same, however, in the
subsequent judgment it was held that
dependency was a question of fact which was
required to be decided on case to case basis.

xxx. As far as legal value of the Trust Deed

produced by Respondent No.6 is concerned,
the learned counsel submits that the said
document was governed by the English Law.
He maintains that it is settled law that
questions arising out of foreign law are to be
treated as questions of fact which need to be
proved through the various modes provided in
law including production of expert witnesses.
In this regard, he refers to Articles 52, 94 &
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 402
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

112 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Reference was also made to Order VII Rule
1(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
learned counsel also relies upon Atlantic
Steamers Supply Co. v. M.V. Titisee [PLD 1993
SC 88 @ 94(B) and 97].

xxxi. The learned ASC submits that this Court has,

over time set standards and criteria which
may be applied by it while dealing with
questions of disqualification of elected holders
of public offices in exercise of powers under
Article 184(3) of the Constitution. In this
regard, he made the following submissions:-
i) In most cases where elected
Parliamentarians were disqualified in
exercise of powers under Article 184(3)
of the Constitution, this Court relied on
material which was either admitted or
not denied or decisions of Courts /
Tribunals were not appealed against. In
some cases, involving fake degrees and
dual nationality, the
material/documents available before
this Court were either undisputed or
undisputable, therefore, this Court
relied on such material and recorded its
findings on the same;

ii) Where there were disputed questions of

fact requiring recording of evidence, or
there was voluminous record that
needed to be proved, involving intricate
questions of law and facts this Court
declined to interfere. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel has
placed reliance on Farzand Ali v.
Province of West Pak [PLD 1970 SC 98
@ 113]; Khuda Bakhsh v. Zafarullah
Khan Jamali [1997 SCMR 561];
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of
Pakistan [PLD 2012 SC 1089].
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 403
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xxxii. Referring to the material placed by the

petitioner on the record, the learned counsel
submits that the petitioner has relied upon
certain passages of a book titled Capitalism's
Achilles Heel authored by Raymond W. Booker.
He submits that at best the text of the book
represents an opinion of the author and unless
the said author appears before this Court, is
examined and subjected to cross-examination,
his opinion cannot be read in evidence or
taken as gospel truth. In this regard, reference
has been made to Article 78 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 to argue that unless the
author/ signatory of a document appears as a
witness and is subjected to cross-examination,
such document cannot be read in evidence.
He further stated that in a few exceptional
cases where this Court has recorded findings
on the basis of unproved documents, such
documents had been admitted by both sides
on the basis whereof the Court recorded its
findings. In this regard, reference has been
made to Muhammad Asif v. Federation of
Pakistan [PLD 2014 SC 206 @ 227].

xxxiii. As far as the use of newspaper clippings and

articles are concerned, the learned counsel
submits that the general law on the subject is
that such cuttings, reports and news items
cannot be read as evidence. He has referred
to Aftab Shaban Mirani v. President of Pakistan
[1998 SCMR 1863 @ 1874(E)] and Muhammad
Azam v. Khalid Javed Gillan [1981 SCMR 734
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 404
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

@ 736(B)] and Pakistan Muslim League (N) v.

Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2007 SC 642 @
668(H) and 669]. He maintains that although
in some cases, this Court relied upon
newspaper clippings and articles, such cases
were exceptions to the general rule in so far
as in such cases, this Court was called upon to
examine the validity of executive actions to
see whether there was any material available
before the executive authority to take
executive action and whether such executive
actions had not been taken arbitrarily and
without any justifiable basis. In such case, this
Court had held that it was not sitting in appeal
against exercise of powers by the executive
authority but was examining the validity of
such exercise to see whether or not there was
any material before the executive authority
which furnished basis for exercise of such
authority. He further maintains that most of
these cases related to exercise of executive
powers by the President of Pakistan under the
erstwhile Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution.
In this regard, he referred to Islamic Republic
of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan [PLD 1976 SC
57 @ 112 (LL)]; Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief
of Army Staff [PLD 1977 SC 657]; and Wattan
Party v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2006 SC
697].

xxxiv. He further maintains that the general policy of

law as well as the view of this Court has been
that efforts should be made to uphold
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 405
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

executive actions. Unless it is shown that such

actions were taken maliciously, arbitrarily and
without sufficient and adequate material, this
Court has desisted from interference in such
cases. Reference has been made to Chairman,
Railways Board v. Abdul Majid Sardar [PLD
1966 SC 725 @ 730]; Lahore Improvement
Trust v. Custodian of Evacuee Property [PLD
1971 SC 811 @ 837(J)]; Saghir Ahmed v.
Province of Punjab [PLD 2004 SC 261 @
267(B)]; and Benazir Bhutto v. President of
Pakistan [PLD 2000 SC 77 @ 84].

xxxv. In the case of Benazir Bhutto v. President of

Pakistan [PLD 2000 SC 77], the matter arose
out of dismissal of the Government of
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto by the then
President of Pakistan in exercise of powers
conferred on him under Article 58(2)(b) of the
Constitution. This Court dismissed the
petitions challenging the executive action
taken by the President of Pakistan in which
inter alia allegations of corruption were also
leveled. However, on an application moved by
the petitioner in the said case, this Court
clarified that the material and evidence
examined and findings recorded by it were
limited to the legality and validity of an
executive action under Article 58(2)(b) of the
Constitution and the same would not be used
against the petitioner in any other
proceedings initiated against her on charges
of corruption.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 406
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xxxvi. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1

specifically stated that he did not challenge
the maintainability of the petition or the
powers of this Court in terms of Article 184(3)
of the Constitution to entertain the same.
Relying on the cases of Murree Brewery Co.
Ltd v. Pakistan [PLD 1972 Supreme Court 279]
as well as CIT v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd
[2009 SCMR 1279], the learned counsel
submits that by now it is settled law that even
if an alternate remedy is available this Court
may in exercise of its constitutional
jurisdiction entertain the matter. He, however,
pointed out that it has also been held by this
Court that where a party has chosen to avail
an alternate remedy, and is in the process of
doing so, this Court will exercise powers
(despite availability of alternate remedy and
the fact that it is being availed) only in cases
where the matter involves fundamental rights
and has been pending in the High Court for a
number of years without any effective order
having been passed. He further submits that
on the doctrine of effective pendency mere
pendency would not preclude this Court from
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3)
of the Constitution. Reference in this regard
has been made to Benazir Bhutto v.
Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1988 SC 416]. He,
however, maintains that the aforesaid
preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction by
this Court are not present in the instant case.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 407
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xxxvii. In the above context, the learned counsel has

referred to CMA#320 of 2017 which provides
details of a number of References filed by the
Members of Political Parties headed by the
petitioners and others which are presently
pending before the Election Commission. It is
also pointed out that a constitutional petition
(Writ Petition No.31193 of 2015) filed by a
Member of the Political Party headed by the
petitioner is also pending before the Lahore
High Court which raises identical questions of
law and fact. Other References have been
filed before the Speaker of the National
Assembly which are presently pending before
him.

xxxviii. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1

submits that in matters involving
disqualification, this Court has set standards
of evidence which are required to be met in
order to disqualify an elected Member of the
Parliament. He maintains that one such
standard is that the evidence must meet the
requirements of a criminal trial and the benefit
of any doubt that may arise must go to the
accused. In this regard, he has referred to
Muhammad Saeed v. Election Tribunal, West
Pakistan, etc [PLD 1957 SC 91 @ 123 & 124];
Saeed Hassan v. Pyar Ali [PLD 1976 SC 6 @
25] and Hafeezuddin v. Abdul Razzaq [PLD
2016 SC79 @ 93].

xxxix. The learned counsel submits that in order to

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 408
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disqualify a holder of public office under

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution a
declaration of a Court of law is required.
Although, this Court is a Court of law, the
declaration visualized under Article 62 of the
Constitution has to be given effect by
complying with the requirements of Articles
10A, 17 & 25 of the Constitution. He maintains
that unless provisions of Article 10A of the
Constitution are adhered to, the requirements
of justice and equality before the law would
not be met. He therefore maintains that the
allegations against Respondent No.1 must be
judged on the same standards as set by this
Court for disqualification of ordinary Members
of the Parliament as there are no separate and
/ or special rules for disqualification of the
Prime Minister of the country.

12. Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned Sr.ASC, appearing on

behalf of Respondents No.6, 9 & 10 made the following

submissions:-

i. At the very outset, the learned counsel stated

that he adopts the arguments of Mr.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Sr.ASC for
Respondent No.1. He has also placed on
record a statement of Respondent No.6 which
was duly signed by him on her behalf. He
submitted that the petitioners had alleged
that the Respondents had not submitted any
documents in order to substantiate their
defence. He pointed out that Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 409
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.6 to 8 had submitted a number of

documents and if necessary more documents
would be submitted on behalf of Respondents
No.7 & 8. In this regard, he gave a list of
documents that had been submitted on behalf
of Respondents No.6 to 8 in view of the fact
that at the relevant time all three
Respondents were being represented by one
learned counsel (Mr. Muhammad Akram
Sheikh). However, on a subsequent stage the
team of Lawyers representing the said
Respondents was changed and now
Respondents No.6, 9 & 10 were being
represented by him (Mr. Shahid Hamid,
Sr.ASC) while Respondents No.7 & 8 were
being represented by Mr. Salman Akram Raja,
ASC. The list of documents is as follows:-
i) Concise statement on behalf of
Respondents No.6 to 8 (CMA#7391 of
2016);

ii) Supplementary concise statement

(CMA#7531 of 2016);

iii) Letter issued by Sheikh Hamad

(CMA#7638 of 2016);

iv) Response to CMA#7511 of 2016 filed by

the petitioner (CMA#7646 of 2016);

v) Trust Deed dated 02.02.2006 relating to

London Flats (CMA#7661 of 2016);

vi) Copies of land record Registry relating to

London Flats (CMA#7953 of 2016) [total
cost of the Four Flats was amounting to
1.905 Million at the relevant time];

vii) Tax Returns of Respondent No.6 from

2011-16;
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 410
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

viii) Tax Returns of Mst. Shamim Akhtar,

grandmother of Respondent No.6
(CMA#8116 of 2016);

ix) Wealth Tax Statements of the father of

Respondent No.6, Bank Statements and
related documents (CMA#2519 of 2017);

x) Copies of five References pending

before the Election Commission of
Pakistan and a Constitutional Petition
pending before the Lahore High Court
(CMA#320 of 2017); and

xi) Documents in support of establishing

that Respondent No.6 was not beneficial
owner of the London Flats (CMA#394 of
2017).

ii. The learned counsel submits that there were

mainly three allegations against Respondent
No.6 as spelt out in paragraph 18(ix), (xi) &
(xiii) of Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016. He
further submits that the first allegation is that
Respondent No.1 did not declare the assets of
Respondent No.6 in his Nomination Form filed
for NA-120 during General Election, 2013. The
second allegation is that the amounts gifted
by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.6 were
not through a crossed cheque. And the third
allegation (xiii) is that Respondent No.1 had
declared Respondent No.6 as his dependent in
his Wealth Tax Statements for the year 2011.

iii. The learned counsel submits that there is no

prayer against Respondent No.6 made in the
petition. He further points out that neither in
Constitution Petition No.30 of 2016 filed by
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed nor in Constitution
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 411
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Petition No.3 of 2017 filed by Ameer, Jamaat-

e-Islami, Respondents No.6 to 10 have been
impleaded.

iv. As far as Respondent No.9 is concerned, the

learned counsel states that in paragraph
18(xii) of Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016,
it has been alleged that he had not disclosed
the gift of Rs.31,700,000/- received by his wife
(Respondent No.6) in his Tax Returns and on
this basis alone disqualification of the said
Respondent was being sought as a Member of
the National Assembly.

v. Giving an outline of his submissions, the learned

counsel for Respondents No.6, 9 & 10 has submitted
that he would focus his arguments on the following
aspects:-
i) That on the basis of pleadings before the
Court, no case is made out against
Respondent No.6. Further no relief is
sought against her;

ii) That he would submit arguments with

reference to the Income Tax Ordinance,
2001 (the Ordinance); Representation of
People Act, 1977 (the RoPA); and Section
5(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 (the Act);

iii) That he would make submissions relating

to the concept of dependent /
dependency with reference to the
provisions of the RoPA and the Ordinance;

iv) That arguments would be addressed by

him with reference to CMA No.2519 of
2017 to establish that neither in fact nor
in law was Respondent No.6 a dependent
of Respondent No.1;

v) That he would discuss and analyze the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 412
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

interview of Respondent No.6 with Sana

Bucha an Anchor Person of Geo Television
Network;

vi) That the concept of beneficial ownership

would be discussed and arguments would
be addressed to establish that
Respondent No.6 is and never was a
beneficial owner of the Mayfair Properties
(CMA#394 of 2017); and

vii) That arguments would be addressed

relating to the scope and extent of
jurisdiction of this Court under Article
184(3) of the Constitution and exercise of
such powers against private parties.

vi. The learned counsel submits that during the

course of his arguments, he would also rely on
the following documents:-
i) Income Tax Returns of Respondent No.6
from 2011-12 (CMA#7319 of 2016);

ii) Income Tax Returns of Respondent No.6

for the year 2011-12; and

iii) An opinion rendered by A.F. Ferguson &

Company, Chartered Accountants
CMA#7531 of 2016.

vii. He states that the following documents

have been placed on record with the
aforesaid CMA which would be relied upon:-

a) License issued in favour of Gulf Steel by

the Dubai Municipality;

b) Lease Agreement in favour of Gulf Steel;

c) Land Rent Agreement with Gulf Steel;

d) Contract for sale of 75% share of Gulf

Steel in favour of Al-Ahli;

e) Agreement to Sell for transfer of

remaining 25% share in Gulf Steel;
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 413
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

f) Photographs showing inauguration of

Gulf Steel by the Ruler of Dubai;

g) Affidavits of Mian Muhammad Tariq

Shafi;

h) Incorporation Certificates of Nescol

Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited;

i) Shares Certificate issued from time to

time regarding ownership of Nescol
Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited
(pages 65 to 70);

j) Trust Deed dated 02.02.2006 relating to

Coomber Enterprises;

k) Income Tax Returns of Respondent No.6

from 2011-16 [CMA#8116 of 2016
(pages 2 to 100)];

l) Income Tax Returns of Mst. Shamim

Akhtar, grandmother of Respondent No.6
for the years 2011-16 (pages 100 to
177);

m) Wealth Tax Statements of Respondent

No.1 and that of Mst. Shamim Akhtar for
the year 2010 (CMA#2519 of 2016); and

n) Accounts Statements of Respondent

No.1 relating to his accounts with
Standard Chartered Bank and Habib
Bank Limited showing entries dated
15.02.2011 indicating debit and credit
entries to reflect payment by
Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.1 for
price of land held in the name of
Respondent No.6.

viii. Learned counsel appearing on behalf

of Respondents No.6, 9 & 10 has submitted
that the allegation that Respondent No.9
had not disclosed the gift of
Rs.31,700,000/- received by his wife
(Respondents No.6) in his Tax Returns is
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 414
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

misconceived. He has stated that in the

first place, Respondent No.9 did not file his
Tax Returns during the period between
2011-14, in view of the fact that he did not
have an NTN till 28.01.2014 and tax
payable by him was deducted at source.
However, the gift received by Respondent
No.6 from her father was disclosed in her
Returns and copies of her Returns were
filed with the nomination papers of
Respondent No.9. This being the situation,
there was no question of any concealment
on the part of Respondent No.9 or violation
of any laws on his part, attracting the
penalty of disqualification. He submits that
even if for the sake of argument it is
admitted that for the years 2011-14,
Respondent No.9 was required to file
Income Tax Returns and having failed to do
so was liable to pay penalties in terms of
Section 114(2) read with Section 82 of the
Ordinance, neither a show cause notice was
issued to him by the Income Tax authorities
nor were any penalties imposed on him
which may have remained unpaid.
Therefore, Respondent No.9 cannot by any
stretch of language be termed as a
defaulter.

ix. Learned counsel has also informed us that

a number of References on the same
subject as this petition are pending before
the Election Commission of Pakistan. In one
case where the Speaker of the National
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 415
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Assembly had declined to forward a

Reference to the Election Commission, the
order of the Speaker is under challenge
before the Lahore High Court under Article
199 of the Constitution. He submits that
although he does not challenge the
maintainability of these petitions, this fact
needs to be kept in mind while adjudicating
these petitions.

x. The learned counsel has formulated the

following questions with reference to the
scope of jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 184(3) of the Constitution:-
a) Enforcement of which Fundamental
Rights requires a declaration that
Respondent No.6, who is a private
citizen, is a dependent of her father
and the owner of a property in a
foreign country;

b) How a question whether Respondent

No.6 is a dependent of her father is a
matter of public importance;

c) Can disputed questions of fact i.e.

whether Respondent No.6, a private
citizen, is a dependent of Respondent
No.1 and whether she is the owner of
a foreign property, be determined by
this Court in exercise of its powers
under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution without recording
evidence; and

d) Whether the petition is bona fide or

based upon political animosity and
forged documents. If it is found that
the petition is based upon forged
documents, what is the effect?

xi. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to

the document produced by the petitioner
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 416
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and appended with CMA#7511 of 2016

which is a board resolution purportedly
passed on 07.02.2016 bearing the
signatures of Respondent No.6 (Mrs.
Maryam Safdar). He submits that the
document in question is patently a forged
document as the signatures appearing on
the said document are not those of
Respondent No.6. He refers to the admitted
signatures of Respondent No.6 (Mrs.
Maryam Safdar) on the documents available
on page 244 of CMA#7530 of 2016 and
page 5 of CMA No.7661 of 2016. He submits
that even to a naked eye, it is apparent that
the admitted signatures of Respondent No.6
differ in material aspects from the
signatures appearing on the afore-noted
board resolution. Likewise, he has referred
to the personal information form produced
by the petitioner appended with CMA#4 of
2016 at page 17 and submitted that the
said signatures are ex facie not those of the
Respondent No.6 as the same are clearly
different from her admitted signatures. In
this context, the learned counsel has relied
on Hafeezuddin v. Abdul Razzaq [PLD 2016
SC 79 @ 95]. He has also referred to, the
law relating to handwriting, signatures etc
by Dr. B. R. Sharma.

xii. He further submits that the document in

question is a forged document, as there was
neither reason nor occasion for Respondent
No.6 to appoint LZ Nominee Limited as a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 417
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Nominee Director of Nescol Limited

retrospectively with effect from 13.05.2004.

xiii. At this stage, the learned counsel

read the concise statement filed on behalf
of Respondent No.6. It was noticed that the
said concise statement was filed on
07.11.2016. It may be noted that the letter
sent by Sheikh Hamad was dated
05.11.2016, while the concise statement
was filed two days later, yet there was no
mention in the concise statement filed on
behalf of Respondents No.6 to 8 that a part
of the funds generated from sale of Gulf
Steel was invested in the real estate
business of Thani Family in Qatar (as has
been stated in the letter of Sheikh Hamad).
No explanation has been offered by the
learned counsel for Respondent No.6 for the
said omission.

xiv.It also appears that in paragraph 5(c) at

page 6 of the concise statement,
Respondent No.6 has stated that she is only
a Trustee for Respondent No.7 in relation to
Nescol Limited. Learned counsel was asked
to explain why there is no mention of
Nielsen Enterprises despite the fact that
Respondent No.6 also claims to be a Trustee
for the said company. The learned counsel
attempted to argue that the lapse was on
account of bona fide error/lapse in view of
the fact that Trust Deed dated 02.02.2006
clearly indicates that Respondent No.6 is a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 418
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Trustee for both companies.

xv. The learned counsel for Respondents No.6,

9 & 10 while addressing arguments on the
question of dependency of Respondent No.6
on Respondent No.1 submitted that she had
indeed received gifts from Respondent No.1
i.e. her father from time to time in various
amounts and in the form of immovable
property, but there was nothing unusual
about it. In our society, it is a common
practice for fathers to give gifts to their
married daughters. The said fact does not
make her dependent on Respondent No.1.
He maintained that the term dependency
is not defined in the Ordinance. In this
context, he referred to Section 2(33) which
defines a minor child; Section 19(8)(b)
which states that a minor child shall not
include a married daughter; and Section
116(1)(b) of the Ordinance, which refers to
other dependents. He submitted that in the
absence of any specific definition of
dependent one would have to rely on the
ordinary meaning of the said word. In this
regard, he referred to Blacks Law Dictionary
as well as a judgment of this Court reported
as M. A. Faheemuddin Farhum v. Managing
Director/Member (Water) [2001 SCMR 1955]
in which the definition of dependent as
given in Blacks Law Dictionary have been
relied upon.

xvi. The learned counsel further referred

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 419
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

to Section 116(2) of the Ordinance read with

Rule 36 of the Income Tax Rules and the
form of Wealth Tax Statement as given in
part 4 of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax
Rules which provide for filing of Wealth
Statements and Wealth Reconciliation
Statements. He submitted that Item#12 of
the said form requires a disclosure of assets
held in the name of spouse, minor children
and other dependents. In view of the fact
that immovable property was purchased by
Respondent No.1 in the name of Respondent
No.6 and there was no separate column to
disclose the same, it was mentioned in the
only available column provided in the form.
He, however, emphasized the fact that mere
mentioning of Respondent No.6 in the said
column did not mean that she was a
dependent of Respondent No.1. In fact it
was bona fide disclosure of a property held
by Respondent No.1 in the name of
Respondent No.6. He has substantiated his
argument by referring to SRO No.184/2015
through which a new column was added to
the aforesaid form by substituting
Column#12 with Column#14 which provides
for disclosure of assets held in, others
names. He further maintains that in view of
the fact that price of the said property was
paid by Respondent No.6 to Respondent
No.1 through banking channels, the said
property was not mentioned in the Wealth
Tax Returns or the nomination papers of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 420
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.1 in the year 2013. He has

further pointed out that copies of the
accounts statements of Respondent No.6 as
well as Respondent No.1 indicate that a sum
of Rs.24,851,526/- was debited from the
account of Respondent No.6 and credited to
the account of Respondent No.1 during the
tax year 2012. He therefore submits that
there is no substance in the argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
Respondent No.6 was a dependent of
Respondent No.1.

xvii. Learned counsel submits that the

word dependency has different
connotations in different laws and the
definition used in one law cannot be
transposed / transferred to another law. He
maintains that the question of dependency
along with its extent is to be determined
keeping in view the facts and circumstances
of each case.

xviii. Learned counsel has referred to the

Wealth Statements filed by Respondent No.1
and Respondent No.6 to show that as of 31 st
March 2013 when Respondent No.1 filed his
nomination papers, Respondent No.6 had
sufficient income and assets of her own,
generated from various sources including
agricultural income, sale of assets and
receipt of gifts from various sources and
therefore she could not be termed as a
dependent of Respondent No.1. The learned
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 421
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

counsel also took us through four sale deeds

on the basis of which agricultural land was
purchased by Respondent No.1 in the name
of Respondent No.6. He emphasized the fact
that at the relevant time, consideration for
said sale deed was paid by Respondent No.1
while ostensible owner was Respondent
No.6. However, subsequently the entire sale
consideration of Rs.24,851,526/- was paid
by Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.1
through banking channels where-after she
became real owner of the said assets which
were duly reflected in her Wealth
Statements and Wealth Reconciliation
Statements.

xix. The learned counsel also drew our

attention to various documents indicating
that she and her family had been
contributing their due shares in the pool of
household expenses maintained by Mst.
Shamim Akhtar, the grandmother of
Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 who owns all five
properties in the compound in which
Respondent No.6 resides along with her
family.

xx. While rebutting the allegation of the

petitioner that the gifts received by
Respondent No.1 and thereafter partly
transferred to his children including
Respondent No.6 constituted income from
other sources and was therefore taxable,
the learned counsel for the Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 422
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

pointed out that the funds were sent by

Respondent No.7 who holds an NTN, in
favour of Respondent No.1 who also holds a
Tax Number therefore the same did not
constitute income from other sources and
was not liable to be taxed. He further
pointed out that the amounts given by
Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.6 were
transferred through banking channels and
were not liable to be taxed. He further
maintains that according to Wealth
Statements of Respondent No.6, she owned
assets in access of 200 Million Rupees
between 2013-16 therefore by no stretch of
the language she could be termed as a
dependent.

xxi. Learned counsel maintained that

while exercising jurisdiction under Article
184(3) of the Constitution, this Court must
establish the bona fides of the petitioners.
He argued that the present petitions were
the result of political differences and
rivalries, the petitioners had approached
this Court with unclean hands and were
therefore not entitled to any relief in the
present proceedings. In this context, he also
referred to T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v.
Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 1774); Janata
Dal v. H. S. Chowdhry (AIR 1993 SC 892);
and S.P. Gupta and others v. President of
India and others (AIR 1982 SC 149).

xxii. Learned counsel also made

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 423
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

submissions regarding the case against

Respondent No.10. Referring to paragraph
18(xvi) of Constitution Petition No.29 of
2016, he submitted that the allegation
against Respondent No.10 is that he had
admitted to the charge of money laundering
to the tune of US$ 14.886 Million in a
confessional statement made by him before
the Judicial Magistrate on 25.04.2000.
Further, that Respondent No.1 and his
brother, the current Chief Minister of the
Province of Punjab had instructed
Respondent No.10 to open foreign currency
accounts in the names of Mst. Sikandra
Masood Kazi, etc and Mr. Talat Masood Kazi
in the Bank of America and many other
banks with foreign currency/funds provided
by Respondents No.1 and his brother. He
pointed out that it is alleged that in order to
meet financial needs of HPML, fake foreign
currency accounts were opened in Emirate
Banks with US$ 3.725 Million, and Al Faysal
Bank with US $ 8.539 Million and US$ 2.622
Million. In this regard, the learned counsel
submits that the confessional statement
constituted basis for lodging of two FIRs,
one bearing No.12 of 1994 lodged on
10.11.1994 and the other bearing No.13 of
1994 dated 12.11.1994 with FIA and SIU,
Islamabad. He submits that Respondent
No.10 was arrested on 15.10.1999 and the
confession was forcibly procured from him
while he was in custody on 25.04.2000.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 424
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Even after the confession, he remained in

custody till September, 2001. He submits
that in the first place, the statement has
nothing to do with the Panama Papers.
Further, the FIRs were quashed and all the
accused were acquitted by a Bench of
Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions No.12172
of 1997 and 12173 of 1997 vide a judgment
reported as Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v.
Federation of Pakistan (1999 P. Cr. L. J 1584).

xxiii. Subsequently, a Reference was filed

by the NAB on the same facts which were
narrated in the FIRs in the year 2000.
However, the proceedings in the Reference
were adjourned sine die in view of the fact
that the accused had in the meantime left
the country and were not available to face
the Reference. However, pursuant to a Writ
Petition filed before the Lahore High Court, a
learned Division Bench of the High Court
quashed the Reference. There was
disagreement between Members of the
Bench on the question whether or not the
matter could be reinvestigated by the NAB.
One learned Member of the Bench held that
despite quashment of the Reference, NAB
was not barred from reinvestigating the
matter and proceeding further in
accordance with the law. However, the other
learned Member of the Bench held that the
matter could not be reinvestigated. In order
to resolve the difference of opinion, the
matter was referred to a Referee Judge who
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 425
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

agreed that the matter could not be

reinvestigated. The learned counsel pointed
out that since the said judgment of the High
Court was never challenged before this
Court, the same had attained finality and
the confessional statement on which the
Reference was based had lost its legal
value. He maintained that even otherwise,
the confession of Respondent No.10 had
been procured under coercion and was not
worthy of any reliance.

xxiv. The learned counsel was asked

whether this Court could pass an
appropriate order to interfere in the
judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby
the Reference against Respondent No.10
and others was quashed and the NAB was
restrained from reinvestigating the matter
on the principles laid down in Tauqeer
Sadiqs case (PLD 2012 SC 132), the learned
counsel submitted that the allegation
against Respondent No.10 had withstood
scrutiny before various superior Courts of
the country and it would be unjust and
unfair to reopen the matter after a lapse of
more than 16 years.

xxv. The learned counsel further pointed

out that when Respondent No.10 was
elected as a Senator in 2014, his election
was challenged by way of a constitutional
petition before the Islamabad High Court
raising the same allegations as earlier
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 426
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

leveled in the FIRs and the References. The

Islamabad High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition No.4818 of 2014 and the Intra Court
Appeal filed against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge was also dismissed.
The matter was never agitated before this
Court, which therefore also attained finality.

xxvi. As far as the questions of money

laundering and fake foreign currency
accounts are concerned, the learned
counsel also drew our attention to a
judgment of Full Bench of the Lahore High
Court reported as Hudabiya Engg. (Pvt) Ltd.
v. Pakistan [PLD 1998 Lahore 90 (paragraph
30)] in which relying on the Economic
Reforms Ordinance, 1992 the Full Bench had
held that foreign currency accounts and
transactions undertaken by the petitioner
therein enjoyed complete immunity and
protection in terms of the said Ordinance.
He, therefore, maintained that the relief
sought against Respondent No.10 could not
be granted.

xxvii. The learned counsel further submitted

that disqualification of Respondent No.10 is
sought on grounds which have already been
repelled by the Islamabad High Court as well
as the Lahore High Court where a learned
Division Bench unanimously quashed the
Reference and one of the grounds which
prevailed with the learned Division Bench
was that the alleged confession of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 427
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.10 was not admissible

having been made before the wrong forum.
He contended that although there was
disagreement amongst the learned Judges
of the Division Bench on the question
whether or not NAB could reinvestigate the
matter and proceed thereafter, such
disagreement was resolved by the learned
Referee Judge who held that the matter
could not be reinvestigated for reasons
recorded by one of the Members of the
Division Bench. He, therefore, submitted
that the matter stood settled and could not
be reopened at this stage, especially so,
where the judgment of the Lahore High
Court was not challenged before this Court.
He further submitted that the prayer of the
petitioner that NAB be directed to file an
appeal against the judgment of the Lahore
High Court and the order of the Referee
Judge in Writ Petition No.2617 of 2011 could
not be granted because the same was
barred by time.

xxviii. The learned counsel for Respondent

No.10 summarized his formulations as
follows:-

i) The disqualification of Respondent

No.10 is being sought on the basis of
allegations leveled in 1992 i.e. over 25
years ago. It would, therefore, neither
be just nor proper to reopen the
matter at this stage.

ii) The allegations against Respondent

No.10 pertain to a period of time when
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 428
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

he did not hold a public office. In

1992, Respondent No.10 was the Chief
Executive of First Hajveri Modaraba
which was a non-banking financial
institution. He further submits that he
held a public office for the first time
with effect from 15.09.1992 when he
was appointed as Chairman, Pakistan
Board of Investment. He resigned from
the said post on 19.04.1993.

iii) Over the past 25 years many superior

Courts adjudicated upon the matters
directly or indirectly involving
Respondent No.10. He was not
convicted of any wrongdoing..

xxix. On our query, the learned counsel

conceded that the acquittal order passed
by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore
High Court and the order passed by a five
Members Bench of the Lahore High Court
were passed in proceedings in which
Respondent No.10 was not a party. He,
however, submitted that both judgments
emerged from the same set of facts and a
five Members Bench of the Lahore High
Court held that FIA had no jurisdiction to
investigate transactions and foreign
currency accounts which were protected by
the Economic Reforms Ordinance, 2002.

xxx. Making his submissions regarding

validity of the confessional statement
allegedly made by Respondent No.10, the
learned counsel submitted that it had
repeatedly been held by different Courts
that the confessional statement of
Respondent No.10 had no evidentiary
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 429
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

value, firstly because it was not made

before the competent forum and secondly,
because he was not an accused in the
Reference filed against
Directors/Shareholders of Hudaibiya Paper
and Board Mills Limited. The record
indicates that Respondent No.10 was
granted pardon under Section 26 of the
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance,
1999 (NAB Ordinance) on 21.04.2000
where-after his confessional statement was
recorded under the NAB Ordinance. The
learned ASC submits that in terms of
Section 26(b) of the NAB Ordinance in its
original form an accused was required to be
examined as a witness. He, however,
submits that the said Section of the NAB
Ordinance was subsequently amended to
incorporate a provision that the accused
was required to be produced before a
Magistrate to make a confessional
statement. He submits that it is settled law
as was held by a learned Division Bench of
the Lahore High Court that amendment in
the law could not be given retrospective
effect. Therefore, the confessional
statement allegedly made by Respondent
No.10 before a Magistrate had no legal
value. He further submits that since after
the grant of pardon Respondent No.10, was
no longer an accused and was not named
as an accused in the Reference, as such,
his confessional statement can neither be
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 430
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

used against him nor any 3rd party. He also

submits that the confessional statement
can only be used as a statement of a
witness if he appears as a witness in the
trial of others. He submits that since no trial
was conducted, there is no question of
confessional statement being used against
the Respondent No.10 or any 3rd party.

xxxi. The learned counsel contended that

Respondent No.10 was arrested on
15.10.1999 and his confessional statement
was recorded while he was in custody in
Attock Fort in April, 2000. It is clear and
obvious from the surrounding
circumstances that the confession had not
been made freely, was obtained while
Respondent No.10 was under duress, and
as such, it cannot constitute basis for any
conviction. He further points out that no
Court has so far assigned any value to the
said alleged confession. He has referred to
the provisions of Article 13 of the
Constitution, Section 403 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and Section 26
of the General Clauses Act to argue that
said provisions provide protection against
double jeopardy. The learned counsel
however did not press this point any
further.

xxxii. The attention of the learned counsel

was drawn to a judgment reported as
Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 431
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(PLD 2012 Supreme Court 132) in which

this Court had held that even if a judgment
of a High Court is not challenged before this
Court, it can in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution
interfere in the matter in public interest and
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The learned counsel referred to paragraph
8 of the judgment to argue that the
judgment in question was distinguishable in
so far as this Court has held that the
Islamabad High Court had only examined
transfer orders passed by the Chairman,
OGRA and had not examined the validity of
his appointment which is not the case
before this Court. He emphasized the fact
that the judgment was distinguishable and
this was not a fit case for this Court to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 184(3)
of the Constitution to resurrect a matter
which had been laid to rest in 2014 by a
judgment of the Lahore High Court.

13. Respondents No.7 & 8 are represented by Mr.

Salman Akram Raja, learned ASC. He made the following

submissions:-

i. The case against Respondents No.7 & 8 has

three broad aspects. Firstly, the speeches and
interviews given by Respondent No.1 and
members of his family including Respondents
No.7 & 8 and the inconsistencies which are
being attempted to be shown. He submits that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 432
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

statements of Respondents No.7 & 8 are being

taken as a standard against which correctness
of statements and speeches made by
Respondent No.1 are sought to be judged.
Secondly, the official records, Income Tax
Returns and Nomination Papers filed by
Respondent No.1 are being used to build a
case of default / nonpayment of government
dues / evasion of taxes on the part of
Respondent No.1. He submits that an attempt
is being made to show that Respondent No.7
had made gifts to Respondent No.1 which
should have been treated as, income from
other sources and tax was required to be
paid on such income. He stated that it was
being argued by petitioners learned counsel
that since neither the gifts were disclosed as
income from other sources nor was tax paid
on the same, Respondent No.1 was liable to
be disqualified.

ii. Thirdly, this Court is being called upon to

determine facts, compare the speeches,
statements and interviews of Respondent No.1
with such facts and on the basis thereof
disqualification of Respondent No.1 is being
sought under Articles 62 & 63 of the
Constitution.

iii. He further submits that status of Respondents

No.6 & 7 is being canvassed as that of
beneficiaries holding assets acquired through
illegal means by Respondent No.1. He further
submits that this requires a detailed factual
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 433
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

inquiry which cannot be undertaken by this

Court in exercise of its powers under Article
184(3) of the Constitution. He also submits
that even if for the sake of argument,
Respondents No.7 & 8 are beneficiaries in
terms of Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance
or Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, the said exercise requires a full trial
before a Court of competent jurisdiction and is
beyond the scope of Article 184(3) of the
Constitution.

iv. The learned counsel has read prayer clause 2

of Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 to point
out that it seeks direction for recovery of
looted/laundered money along with properties
purchased through BVI Companies. He
submits that since Respondent No.7 is the
beneficial owner of the Mayfair Properties
through offshore companies, the prayer can
be interpreted to be against him. He further
submits that the prayer as well as the
averments made in the Constitution Petition
are vague and without an evidentiary hearing,
the said prayer cannot be granted. He
maintains that it would have to be established
through cogent and reliable evidence that the
properties in question have been acquired
through looted money which was then
laundered and utilized to purchase the said
properties. He contends that grant of such
prayer inherently requires investigation and
trial which cannot be undertaken under Article
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 434
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

184(3) of the Constitution. He further submits

that prayer clauses 1 & 6 are self-
contradictory as on the one hand
disqualification of Respondents No.1, 9 & 10 is
sought while on the other a direction to probe
and minutely scrutinize the Tax Returns and
Assets Declarations of Respondent No.1 and
his entire family is prayed for. He, therefore,
submits that prayer clause 1 cannot be
granted unless the process sought in prayer
clause 6 is completed.

v. He further submits that the offence of money

laundering is covered under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 which provides a
mechanism for its investigation and trial. He
maintains that although the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution
is vast, it does not take away the jurisdiction
of the statutory authorities to exercise their
functions. He further maintains that hearing
before this Court cannot be termed as an
evidentiary hearing, as such, no convictions /
declarations can be recorded in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. He also
refers to Article 19A of the Constitution to
argue that the right to have access to
information is defined and structured. Since
Respondents No.7 & 8 are not public servants
nor do they hold public offices their private
affairs are not subject to scrutiny under the
provisions of Article 19A of the Constitution.

vi. As far as the question of burden of proof is

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 435
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

concerned, the learned ASC has relied upon a

judgment of this Court reported as Khalid Aziz
v. State [2011 SCMR 136]. He argued that in
cases where a departure is made from the
general rule (i.e. the onus of proof lies upon
the prosecution) and the onus is placed on the
accused (by legislative instrument), the
standard of proof is considerably reduced and
if he provides a plausible explanation, the
same is deemed to be sufficient. In such
situations, he submits that an accused is not
required to prove his innocence beyond
reasonable doubt. He further maintains that
where a person is accused of holding
properties beyond his means or holding
properties through ostensible
owners/Benami, the initial onus is on the
prosecution to prove that the properties are
being held Benami and the same have been
purchased with funds which are in excess of
known means of the accused and the said
factors have to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. The onus then shifts to the
accused who is required to provide a plausible
explanation and if he succeeds in doing so,
the onus of proof stands discharged. He has
emphasized the fact that benchmark of onus
of proof is much higher on the prosecution
which is beyond reasonable doubt while the
benchmark of onus of proof on the accused is
much lower and is confined to provision of
plausible explanation. He maintains that the
explanation being provided by Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 436
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.7 & 8 regarding Mayfair Properties and the

funds utilized to purchase the said properties
constitutes a plausible explanation within the
realm of possibilities, therefore, this Court
should hold that they have successfully
discharged the onus of proof placed on them.

vii. Learned counsel also read paragraphs 2 and

11 of the petition which contain allegations
against Respondents No.7 & 8. As far as
paragraph 2 is concerned, the learned counsel
submits that the said paragraph consists of
general allegations as there is no specific
allegation leveled against Respondents No.7 &
8. As regards paragraph 11, he submits that
the same consists of an interview of
Respondent No.7 in which he allegedly stated
the properties in London were purchased from
the sale of Steel Mills in Jeddah which had
been set up with loans from Banks and
friends. He submits that the said statement
was a general statement regarding the family
businesses of Respondent No.1 and did not
constitute a misstatement. He further
maintains that the statement of Respondent
No.8 in the BBC Program Hard Talk was
being misinterpreted and taken out of context.
He has pointed out that a statement has been
attributed to the first lady, who allegedly
stated that her family had purchased the
Mayfair Properties in 2000 for its children. He
submits that remarks attributed to the first
lady are part of an article and it is not even
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 437
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

claimed that the article correctly and faithfully

reflects what the first lady had allegedly said.
He further submits that the said article cannot
be relied upon in order to place any
responsibility or liability on the first lady, who
in any event is not a party before this Court.

viii. The learned ASC further referred to paragraph

18 (vii & viii) of the Petition to point out that
generalized allegations had been made
regarding setting up of Gulf Steel Mills in
1980, the amounts received on sale of the
same and the alleged non-disclosure of the
sum US $ 9 Million which was allegedly
received from such sale. The learned counsel
further pointed out that the said assertion is
self-contradictory in view of the fact that
according to the petitioners the entire sale
price of Gulf Steel was utilized towards
settlement of liabilities of BCCI and as such,
no disclosure in the Wealth Tax Statements
was required. He further submits that even if
any disclosure was required to be made, the
same had to be made by the father of
Respondent No.1 and not Respondent No.1 or
his family. Likewise it was being alleged
without any proof that the Mayfair Properties
were purchased between 1993-96 and
Respondent No.1 did not disclose the source
of such funds.

ix. Learned counsel submits that in first place,

the properties were not purchased by any of
the present Respondents during the period
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 438
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

1993-96 and secondly, the same were

received by Respondent No.7 by way of a
business settlement with Thani Family of
Qatar where funds had been invested by his
late grandfather (Mian Muhammad Sharif). In
this view of the matter, he contends that
neither Respondents No.7 & 8 nor Respondent
No.1 can be held liable or responsible on any
count.

x. Going to the factual narration of his case, the

learned counsel submitted that Gulf Steel was
established in 1973 in the backdrop of losses
suffered by the family of Mian Muhammad
Sharif after the fall of Dhaka and
nationalization of Ittefaq Foundry in 1972. In
the year 1973, Mian Muhammad Sharif
decided to set up a business in Dubai and
offered his services to set up a steel
manufacturing Unit in Dubai. The Royal Family
of Dubai agreed to grant a lease of land and a
licence to Mian Muhammad Sharif to conduct
such business which was set up with a loan
given by the Banks including BCCI. He has
frankly conceded that no documents have
been placed on record to show how, when and
against what security the loan was obtained.
He further submits that the loan was taken as
far back as 1974 and when the factories and
houses of Respondent No.1 and his family
were raided in 1999 all records and
documents were taken away by various
agencies, the same were never returned.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 439
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xi. The learned ASC has pointed out that in 1978

Mian Muhammad Sharif decided to sell 75% of
his shareholdings in the company in favour of
Muhammad Abdallah Kaid Ahli (Ahli Family) for
a consideration of AED 21,375,000. In this
regard, a Tripartite Sale Agreement was
executed which has been placed on record. He
submits that it is an admitted position that the
entire sale price was paid directly to BCCI
which was the main creditor of the company
to settle its outstanding dues. He further
submits that subsequently a partnership
agreement was executed between the Ahli
Family and Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi
through which a new set up called Ahli Steel
Mills Company was established having 25%
shareholding of Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi
who was acting on behalf of Mian Muhammad
Sharif. The said 25% shareholdings were
subsequently sold on 14.04.1980 by Mian
Muhammad Tariq Shafi to Ahli Family for an
aggregated sum of AED 12 Million which was
to be paid over a period of 6 months in
installments. In this regard, he referred to the
affidavits filed by Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi,
the first of which was sworn on 12.11.2016
stating the facts and mentioning that AED 12
Million received by way of sale price of 25%
shareholdings was used by him as per
instructions of Mian Muhammad Sharif. He
further submits that in a subsequently filed
affidavit before this Court with CMA No.434 of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 440
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2017 on 20.1.2017, Mr. Tariq Shafi stated that

he had handed over various installments to
Sheikh Fahad Bin Jassim bin Jaber (Sheikh
Fahad), who was the brother of Hamad bin
Jassim bin Jaber, for investment in the real
estate business of the Thani Family in Qatar. It
was further stated that he delivered the funds
in cash on instructions of Mian Muhammad
Sharif and that such amounts were handed
over to Sheikh Fahad in Dubai, the place which
he frequently visited in connection with his
business activities. He, therefore, submits that
since the transactions were made in cash and
were handed over in person to Sheikh Fahad,
no account statements or money trail is
available to establish transfer of such funds.

xii. The learned ASC for Respondents No.7 & 8

submitted that admittedly, the sale price of
75% share in Gulf Steel was AED 21,375,000
while it owed AED 27,664,584 to BCCI. There
was an obvious shortfall. He also admits that
other than the amounts owed to BCCI there
were amounts owed to Dubai Electric
Company and others. He further submits that
he is unaware of the source of funds from
where the above liabilities may have been
settled. He, however, submits that there is
nothing on record to suggest that the amount
of AED 12 Million which was received by Mian
Muhammad Tariq Shafi in 1980 from sale of
the remaining 25% shareholdings in Ahli Steel
Mills was used for the purpose of settlement
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 441
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of the aforesaid liabilities. He has frankly

admitted that he can offer no definitive
information as to how the above liabilities
were settled.

xiii. The learned counsel also submits that in 1980

Ittefaq Foundries were returned to the Sharif
Family. He points out that not only Ittefaq
Foundries once again became profitable
earning huge profits between the period 1981-
90 but during this period the Sharif Family
became one of the most established business
groups in the country having multiple Units
involving Textiles, Sugar and Steel
Manufacturing. He further submits that in
1990 Sharif Family was victimized by the new
government which disallowed a ship
containing scrap meant to be used in Steel
Factories of Sharif Family. To offload its cargo
at the Karachi Port, it remained anchored at
sea for over a year which caused a loss of
about Rs.500,000,000/- to the Sharif Family.
The family was however able to absorb the
said loss and continued to operate as a viable
and profit bearing Group. Therefore, the
allegation that the Sharif Family could ill afford
to purchase four Flats at a price of 1.905
Million which translated into about
Rs.70,000,000/- at the then prevalent
exchange rates has no basis. He further
submits that although Respondents No.7 & 8
did not own the Mayfair Properties, they
occupied the same because the properties in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 442
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

question were owned by Thani Family with

which their grandfather (Mian Muhammad
Sharif) had longstanding personal and
business relations. On our query, the learned
counsel informed us that Respondent No.7
completed his education in 1996 from the UK
while Respondent No.8 graduated from the
London School of Economics in 1999 and
continued to live in the same properties.

xiv. The learned counsel referred to the report

prepared by Mr. Abdul Rahman Malik in 1998
and pointed out that according to the said
report a company titled Ansbacher &
Company was managing Nescol Limited and
Nielsen Enterprises Limited in 1993-96 when
the properties appeared to have been
purchased by Thani Family through two
offshore companies namely Nescol Limited
and Nielsen Enterprises Limited. He further
submits that Respondents No.7 & 8 had
nothing to do with Ansbacher & Company,
Nescol Limited or Nielsen Enterprises Limited
at the relevant time and were merely
occupying the properties in question as
students.

xv. The learned counsel further submits that one

of the pillars of the case built by the
petitioners is that the Mayfair Properties were
placed under a charge by the High Court of
London in the year 2000. He maintains that in
the first place, the said properties were never
mortgaged with Al-Tawfeeq Investment
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 443
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Company. The said company had managed to

obtain an ex parte decree against members of
Sharif Family who were Directors / Guarantors
of HPML and were at the relevant time
incarcerated in Pakistan. In execution
proceedings, Mr. Shezi Nackvi filed an affidavit
stating that Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mian
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and Mian
Muhammad Abbas Sharif who were
defendants in the said suit had beneficial
interests in the properties in question and
sought their attachment. This was done by the
London High Court on the basis of affidavit in
question and in the absence of any counter
affidavit on record. He has also referred to the
affidavit of Mr. Shezi Nackvi which has been
filed before this Court through CMA No.432 of
2017 (page 17) to show that Mr. Nackvi had
no independent information regarding
ownership and title of the defendants in the
properties in question and had filed the
affidavit merely on the basis of the report of
Mr. Rahman A. Malik in which it was alleged
that the Mayfair Flats were owned by the
Sharif Family. He maintains that the charge on
the properties was removed in February /
March, 2000 when the liability of HPML was
settled on payment of US $ 8 Million. This
amount was paid by the Al-Thani Family out of
the amounts owed to Mian Muhammad Sharif
from an investment made by him on the basis
of sale price of 25% shareholdings in the Ahli
Steel Mills amounting to AED 12 Million.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 444
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xvi. The learned counsel also referred to the

financial statements of HPML (attached at
pages 80, 84, 93 and 98 of CMA No.432 of
2017) which indicated the liability of the
company towards Al-Tawfeeq Investment
Company and its settlement through payment
of US $ 8 Million. He further submits that the
decree of the London High Court has wrongly
been considered to mean that the decree was
for a sum of US $ 34 Million which figure has
been arrived at by aggregating the amounts
appearing against the name each of the
defendants in the suit. He states that the
decree was in the sum of around US $ 16
Million and the defendants No.3, 4 and 5 were
required in their respective capacities as
guarantors to pay the said sums in
accordance with the Guarantees executed by
them in favour of Al-Tawfeeq Investment
Company. However, in view of the fact that
the principal liability was that of the company
which discharged the said liability through a
settlement sum of US $ 8 Million, there was no
personal liability enforceable against the
guarantors. Learned counsel further submits
that there is nothing on record to show that
prior to 2006 there was any
ownership/proprietary links of Respondents
No.6 or 8 with the Mayfair Properties.

xvii. Learned ASC next made submissions

regarding the nature of fact finding
proceedings under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 445
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Constitution. He submitted that a substantial

body of jurisprudence had developed in the
past few years in which this Court had
delivered various judgments in exercise of
powers under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution. He further submits that although
in some cases factual inquiries were
undertaken but such exercise was limited to
reliance on admitted facts or admitted
documents. He also submits that the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3)
read with Article 187 is subject to Article 175
of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of
other Courts or Government Agencies charged
with performance of certain functions cannot
be taken away in exercise of such powers. In
support of his contention, the learned counsel
has placed reliance on Suo Motu Case No.5 of
2012 (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 664);
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of
Pakistan (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 195);
Contempt of Court against General (Retd)
Mirza Aslam Beg (PLD 1994 Supreme Court
574); and Pakistan Muslim League (N) v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 Supreme
Court 642) in which it was held that evidence
could be recorded provided it did not involve
voluminous record and intricate questions of
law.

xviii. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts

and circumstances of the present case a trial
cannot be conducted and a conviction cannot
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 446
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

be recorded either against Respondents No.1,

7 or 8 without proper investigation. In this
regard, he referred to Arslan Iftikhar case to
point out that even in that case the matter
was referred to NAB for investigation which
shows that investigative machinery of the
State cannot be ignored to proceed in a
matter where an exercise of investigation and
collection of evidence is required. He further
submits that the doctrine of continuous
mandamus can also be resorted to where
State functionaries/ investigative machinery
can be adverted to for investigation and
collection of evidence while remaining under
the continuous supervision of this Court.

xix. Learned counsel for Respondents No.7 & 8

submits that on the material available on
record, this Court has to determine whether
there are irreconcilable differences between
the speeches made by Respondent No.1 and
the material on record and on that basis
decide the question whether or not the
difference are fatal/irreconcilable and what
would be consequences of the same. He
further submits that there is no undisputed
record available against Respondents No.6 & 7
on the basis of which such decision could be
taken or a conclusion arrived at.

xx. Learned counsel further submits that in the

worst case scenario the speeches of
Respondent No.1 can be treated at par with a
statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C in a
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 447
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

situation where the prosecution has failed to

produce any evidence to convict the accused.
He further submits that it is settled law that if
the prosecution evidence is rejected, the
defence evidence cannot be relied upon to
convict an accused. Another principle in this
regard is that the defence evidence is to be
accepted or rejected as a whole. He therefore
maintains that in the absence of any positive
evidence produced by the petitioners to
establish any wrongdoing on the part of the
Respondents their defence ought to be
accepted. He further maintains that unless the
defence set up by Respondents No.1 or 7 and
8 is inherently defective and beyond the realm
of probabilities or possibilities, their version
cannot out rightly be rejected.

xxi. Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned ASC,

appearing on behalf of Respondents No.6, 7 &
8 submitted that there are three main aspects
of the case set up by the petitioners namely,
(i) verbal aspects which include speeches and
interviews of Respondent No.1 and
Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 in which an effort
has been made to show that contradictions
exist with relation to ownership of the
properties, source of funds and identity of the
person who owns such properties; (ii) official
records including Tax Returns, Nomination
Forms etc. Although an effort has been made
to show that there is tax evasion or mis-
declaration in Nomination Forms, the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 448
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

petitioners have not been able to make out a

case either for disqualification of Respondent
No.1 or any wrongdoing on the part of
Respondents No.6, 7 & 8; and (iii) discovery of
acts or omissions on the part of Respondent
No.1 which could lead to legal consequences
including disqualification in terms of Articles
62 & 63 of the Constitution.

xxii. He submitted that during the course of

hearing of these petitions, the focus of this
Court has been on the following eight
questions: -
1) How was the outstanding debt liability of
Gulf Steel settled?

2) Why did Tariq Shafi not state in his

affidavit that he received 12 Million
Dirhams in cash from Mr. Ahli?

3) Why did Mian Muhammad Sharif cause

cash deposits to be made with the Al
Thani Family when he used bank
accounts to obtain business loans?

4) Where is the record of the

communications between Mian
Muhammad Sharif and Shaikh Jassim bin
Jaber (father of Sheikh Fahad and Sheikh
Hamad) over the period 1980 to 1999?
Was the family aware of the
entrustment/deposit by Mian
Muhammad Sharif?

5) Is there any record of the ownership of

the shares of Nielsen and Nescol that
could have been made available to the
Honble Court by Respondent No.7?

6) What is the basis of Respondent No.7s

beneficial ownership of the shares of
Nielsen and Nescol? What was the role
of Respondent No.6? What is nature of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 449
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

beneficial ownership, as opposed to

legal title, under English law? What are
the requirements for a valid trust?

7) Why was the balance amount that was

payable by the Al Thani Family to Mian
Muhammad Sharif not made a part of
the estate of Mian Sharif for distribution
amongst his heirs?

8) If the Mayfair Properties were purchased

by the Al Thani Family from the
proceeds of the real estate business in
which Mian Muhammad Sharif had
invested, could Mian Sharif be said to
have acquired a proprietary interest in
these flats at the time of the purchases
by Nielsen and Nescol in 1993, 1995 and
1996?

xxiii. Learned counsel submits that although an

effort has been made to answer all questions,
it has to be understood that the Respondents
are being asked to account for a period of
more than forty years, and every act and
transaction undertaken by their grandfather
cannot be established through documentation.
He frankly conceded that there are records
which are missing and there are gaps in the
narration of facts and events which are on
account of lapse of time and death of
grandfather of the Respondents who was the
patriarch of the family and sole Incharge of its
businesses as well. Further, he was at the
helm of affairs when misfortunes befell the
family of the Respondents including
nationalization of family business in 1972 and
the military takeover of 1999 when
Respondent No.1 as well as Respondent No.7
and various other members of their family
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 450
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

were incarcerated, their houses and offices

taken over and all relevant records taken
away. He further submits that nevertheless
every possible effort has been made to
produce before this Court the relevant records
which do not establish any wrongdoing either
on the part of Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 or
Respondent No.1. He maintains that no relief
has been sought against the Respondents
No.6, 7 & 8 and even otherwise, Respondent
No.1 cannot be penalized for any alleged
wrongdoing on the part of Respondents No.1,
7 or 8. He further maintains that even if
Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 are charged with the
offence of having assets beyond their known
means in terms of Section 9 (v) of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999 read with
Section 45 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1945, they cannot be held liable on the basis
of evidence and material available on record.
Further, even if, for the sake of argument the
Respondents were held liable such liability
cannot be used against Respondent No.1.

xxiv. Elaborating the above arguments, the learned

ASC submits that any culpability of the
Respondents would have to be examined in
light of the following circumstances:-

i) Even if the Respondents were charged

under Section 9 (a)(v) of the Ordinance,
they are not required to prove without
reasonable doubt that the assets owned
by them are not beyond their known
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 451
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

sources of income. Even if they offer a

plausible and reasonable explanation
regarding the source of funds from
where such assets were acquired, the
onus then shifts on the petitioners to
establish a case of possession of assets
beyond known sources of income. In this
context, he relied upon Khalid Aziz v.
State (2011 SCMR 136).

ii) Secondly, the learned ASC submits that

even if the Respondents were treated as
accused in a criminal trial and their
statements were to be treated as
statements under Section 342 Cr. P.C, it
is settled law that such statements are
to be taken as a whole including the
inculpatory and exculpatory portions. On
the basis of such criteria, the learned
counsel submits that there is no
evidence to record a conviction against
Respondent No.1 or Respondents No.6,
7 & 8. Reliance in this regard has been
placed on State v. Muhammad Hanif
(1992 SCMR 2047).

iii) Thirdly, the learned counsel submits that

jurisdiction of this Court in terms of
Article 184(3) and Article 187 of the
Constitution is inquisitorial in nature.
However, this Court has desisted from
recording findings of guilt or innocence
on its own accord and has traditionally
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 452
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

left the matters of investigation and

inquiry to appropriate State organs and
trial Courts which may record their
findings after hearing all sides and
fulfilling the requirements of a fair trial
as enshrined in Article 10A of the
Constitution. He maintains that there is
precedent to follow such course of
action by directing State functionaries to
undertake inquiry and investigation
under the direct supervision of this
Court. In this regard, he referred to the
cases of NICL (Suo Motu Case No.18 of
2010) and Hajj Corruption (Corruption in
Hajj Arrangements in 2010). He,
however, maintains that even a
commission cannot undertake the job of
investigator and thereafter record
findings of guilt or innocence. The right
of a fair trial and requirements of Article
10A of the Constitution would be
violated if a commission is empowered
to conduct an investigation and record a
conviction.

xxv. The learned counsel submits that the first

question on the factual aspect of the case is
whether the Mayfair Properties were acquired
by Respondent No.7. He submits that in the
first place it has to be kept in mind that the
Respondent No.7 belongs to a family which
has a long history of being in the Steel
business. Father/grandfather of Respondents
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 453
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

was running a big and successful business

even prior to partition and the entire family
had substantial financial resources. He further
submits that the Mayfair Properties were
acquired by Respondent No.7 by way of a
settlement in 2005/2006 and prior to that the
same were held by Al-Thani Family through
bearer certificates in two offshore companies
namely, Nescol Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises. He pointed out that the only
document relied upon by the petitioners to
establish that the properties in question were
owned by Respondent No.7 in 1999 is the
judgment of the London High Court on the
basis of which the said properties were
attached. He further pointed out that it is
evident that the order of the London High
Court was based upon an affidavit of Mr. Shezi
Nackvi in which it had categorically been
stated that according to his information
certain members of the Sharif Family had
proprietary interests in the said properties. He
further submits that the affidavit was based
upon the information contained in a report
prepared by Mr. Rehman A. Malik in his
personal capacity. He maintains that the
report contained baseless and
unsubstantiated allegations and even
otherwise it was not an official report prepared
under any authorization from any quarter. In
this regard, he referred to paragraphs 12 and
26 of the affidavit of Mr. Nackvi. The learned
counsel further submitted that other than the
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 454
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

affidavit there was nothing on record to show

that any member of the Sharif Family owned
the said flats prior to 2006. He further
maintains that the case set up against the
Sharif Family on the basis of allegations of
money laundering and acquisition of assets in
London was quashed in 1999 by the Lahore
High Court in a case reported as Hamza
Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (1999
P. Cr. L. J 1584).

xxvi. The learned counsel further submits that the

Mayfair Properties were originally acquired by
Al-Thani Family through two offshore
companies namely Nescol Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises Limited. The said family was in
possession of bearer certificates of the said
companies which were subsequently handed
over to a representative of Respondent No.7
pursuant to settlement of accounts of the
investment of AED 12 Million made by the
grandfather of the Respondents in 1980 in the
business of Al-Thani family in Qatar. These
funds were received pursuant to sale of 25%
shares held by Mr. Tariq Shafi on behalf of
Mian Muhammad Sharif in Gulf Steel (later
renamed as Ahli Steel). Settlement of
accounts of the said investment in the
business of the Thani Family took place in
2006 and as a part of settlement, Al-Thani
Family paid US$ 8 Million to Al-Tawfeeq
Investment Bank to settle the liabilities of
HPML, handed over bearer certificates of two
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 455
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

companies as well as title document of the

London properties to representative of
Respondent No.7. Certain sums were earlier
paid by the Thani family as returns on the said
investment during the life time of Mian
Muhammad Sharif which were utilized by
Respondent No.7 for his business in Saudi
Arabia and Respondent No.8 for his business
in the UK in 2001.

xxvii. The said bearer certificates were surrendered

and registered in June 2006 in accordance
with the changed law in the name of Minerva
Holdings and Minerva Officers, which were
service providers appointed by Respondent
No. 7. He stated that earlier, by virtue of Trust
Deed dated 02.02.2006 Respondent No.7
appointed Respondent No.6 as a
trustee/authorized signatory on behalf of
Respondent No.7 who remained beneficial
owner of the properties.

xxviii. The learned counsel submits that the only

question regarding the status of Respondent
No.6 with reference to the Mayfair Properties
that has any relevance to Respondent No.1 is
whether Respondent No.6 is a dependent of
Respondent No.1. He maintains the entire
case of the petitioners hinges on the
argument that Respondent No.6 is a
dependent of Respondent No.1, she holds
beneficial interest in the Mayfair Properties,
and that Respondent No.1 failed to disclose
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 456
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the assets held by his dependent in his

Nomination Papers, and had been guilty of
mis-declaration of assets. He was therefore
liable to be disqualified in terms of Articles 62
& 63 of the Constitution. The learned counsel
submits that there is not an iota of evidence
available on the record to show that
Respondent No.6 is the beneficial owner of the
Mayfair Properties or is a dependent of
Respondent No.1. He therefore maintains that
the Income Tax Returns filed by Respondent
No.6 in 2012 would indicate that she had
agricultural income of Rupees 2.2 Million, her
husband earned Rupees 1.8 Million by way of
salary as a Member of the National Assembly
and she owned assets worth more than
Rupees 50 Million. He argues that with this
income and assets, she could have
independently lived with her husband and the
fact that she was, by choice living in a
compound owned by her grandmother is not
enough to establish that she was a dependent
of Respondent No.1. The learned counsel
therefore submits that the question whether
the Respondent No.6 is a trustee, authorized
signatory or beneficial owner of the Mayfair
Properties is of no significance in so far as it
relates to the case against Respondent No.1
on account of the fact that she was not his
dependent at the relevant time i.e. when he
filed his Nomination Papers or at any time
thereafter.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 457
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xxix. The learned ASC further submits that two

letters issued by Sheikh Hamad establish a
number of things including the fact that the
grandfather of Respondent No.7 had invested
AED 12 Million in the real estate business of
Thani Family in 1980, there was a settlement
of accounts in 2005/2006 and as a part of the
settlement, the bearer certificates of two
companies which held the Mayfair Properties
were delivered to a representative of
Respondent No.6 namely Waqar Ahmad by a
representative of the Sheikh Hamad namely
Nasir Khamis.

xxx. He further submits that version of facts and

circumstances given by the Respondents is
possible and plausible, cannot be discarded
out rightly and despite gaps for obvious
reasons of lapse of time and death of various
people involved, the material available on
record supports the stance taken by the
Respondents. The learned counsel referred to
various assertions made and documents
appended with CMA No.432 of 2017 to point
out that for the first time, the shares in Nescol
Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited were
registered in favour of Minerva
Holdings/Minerva Officers in 2006 on the
instructions of Respondent No.7 who is the
beneficial owner of the two companies as well
as the properties held by them. Subsequently
in 2014, Minerva Holdings / Minerva Officers
were replaced by Trustee Services Corporation
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 458
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Limited which is an in-house corporate Trust

company of JPCA Limited on instructions of
Respondent No.7.

xxxi. The learned counsel submits that although it

has been admitted at various stages in their
interviews by Respondents No.7 & 8 that were
in possession of the Mayfair Properties since
1993, such possession was not in the capacity
of owners. The real owners i.e. Royal Family of
Qatar, had on account of their businesses and
personal association with the grandfather of
the Respondents, permitted them to use the
said properties as a courtesy because at the
relevant time the said Respondents were
studying in London and required the
accommodation to stay there to pursue their
education.

xxxii. The learned counsel took us through the

provisions of International Business
Companies Act, 1984 to submit that in terms
of Section 28 of the said Act, the companies
could issue bearer certificates which were not
required to be registered anywhere. He
pointed out that in terms of Section 31(a) of
the Act, the bearer certificates could be
transferred by delivery. He maintains that
although the law was reenacted in 2004,
requiring the holders of bearer certificates to
register such certificates, the deadline for
registration of the certificates was 31 st
December, 2009. The learned counsel submits
that the two offshore companies namely
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 459
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Nescol Limited and Nielsen Enterprises

Limited were voluntarily re-registered in July
2006, under the new law, the bearer share
certificates initially held by the Thani Family,
delivered to the representative of Respondent
No.7 in 2006 were cancelled and on his
instructions the same were registered in the
names of Minerva Holdings / Minerva Officers,
the service providers appointed by
Respondent No.7.
xxxiii. The learned counsel further submitted that
the only documents that establish the alleged
beneficial ownership of Respondent No.6 of
the two companies are two letters purportedly
written by Mossack Fonseca to the Financial
Investigation Agency of BVI which indicate
that Respondent No.6 was the beneficial
owner of the two companies. Such information
appears to be based upon correspondence
conducted between Mossack Fonseca and
Minerva Holdings / Minerva Officers which was
apparently based upon the information
available with Minerva Holdings / Minerva
Officers at the relevant time. He submits that
neither the records of Minerva Holdings /
Minerva Officers are presently available nor is
he presently in a position to explain on what
basis Minerva Holdings / Minerva Officers took
the position that Respondent No.6 was the
beneficial owner of the two companies. He
submits that the said information is incorrect
and contrary to the record. He, however, drew
our attention to CMA No.432 of 2017 to submit
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 460
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that the alleged Board Resolution dated

7.2.2006 signed by Respondent No.6 whereby
LZ Nominee Limited was reappointed as
Nominee Director of Nescol Limited with effect
from 13.05.2004 has been disowned by
Minerva Holdings / Minerva Officers. He
further submits that the document in question
is fake and Minerva Holdings / Minerva
Officers has specifically stated that the same
was not prepared by it. He vehemently argued
that Respondent No.6 had specifically denied
her signatures on the said document. As such,
he maintains that any attempt on the part of
the petitioners to connect Respondent No.6
with the two companies in her capacity as a
beneficial owner is a futile exercise not
supported by any record.

xxxiv. The learned ASC for Respondents No.6, 7 & 8

took us through fresh documents filed through
CMA No.856 of 2017 to show that Respondent
No.7 had appointed Arrina Limited to provide
full management services with reference to
the Mayfair Properties. Further, the Arrina
Limited had undertaken to liaise on his behalf
with the service providers for Nescol Limited
and Nielsen Enterprises Limited to provide
such services. He drew our attention to some
sample receipts issued by Barclays Bank
confirming that Arrina Limited had paid
certain amounts to Minerva Trust and
Corporate Services Limited for their
professional services. He also drew our
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 461
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

attention to letters containing terms of

engagement issued by JPCA Limited Chartered
Accountants dated 01.08.2014 whereby an
agreement for provision of secretarial services
regarding Nescol Limited and Nielsen
Enterprises Limited was put in place.

xxxv. Turning to his legal submissions, the learned

ASC submitted that the trust document on the
basis of which Respondent No.6 was
appointed as a Trustee of Respondent No.7 is
a valid document and there is nothing
available on record to show that she had any
beneficial interest either in the two companies
or the Mayfair Properties owned by the said
companies. In this regard, he pointed out that
a legal opinion provided by Mr. Stephen
Moverley Smith QC dated 12.01.2017 has
already been placed on record.

xxxvi. The learned ASC further submits that powers

of this Court under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution have been subject matter of a
large number of judgments rendered by it in
the past five years. He further submits that
the settled principle of law is that where
intricate questions requiring recording of
voluminous evidence is required, this Court
has refrained from taking up such exercise
and left the matter for the statutory
authorities to undertake such exercise.
Learned counsel relies on the case of
Muhammad Ashgar Khan v. Mirza Aslam Baig
(PLD 2013 SC 1) to argue that the Court called
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 462
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

upon the parties to file affidavits, no oral

statements were recorded and decision was
given on the basis of facts admitted by the
parties. He has vehemently argued that no
evidence was recorded in the said case.

xxxvii. The learned counsel has emphasized the fact

that this Court has on various occasions
examined the scope of inquisitorial
proceedings and came to the conclusion that
in such proceedings, the Court cannot record
any findings of fact, as such an exercise would
prejudice the trial of the case before a Court
of competent jurisdiction and thereby violate
the due process right of a party as guaranteed
under Article 10A of the Constitution. In this
regard, learned counsel relied upon Watan
Party v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2011 SC
997 (@ 1053 to 1055, 1060 & 1088)]. He has
also referred to 2013 SCMR 683 (@1687).

xxxviii. Referring to General Secretary v. Director,

Industries (1994 SCMR 2061), Zulfiqar Ali
Babu v. Government of the Punjab (PLD 1997
SC 11) and Watan Party v. Federation of
Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 292), it was argued
that a detailed inquiry cannot be undertaken
in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution, the only exception being
limited to findings of constitutional violations
recorded on the basis of admitted facts. He
maintains that there is a distinction between a
declaration and conviction and submitted that
while a declaration can be given by this Court
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 463
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

under limited circumstances on the basis of

admitted or uncontroverted facts, a conviction
cannot be recorded by this Court in exercise of
its constitutional jurisdiction. He maintains
that such exercise would be violative of the
foundational principles of independence of
investigation and independence of Courts
which are two mutually exclusive domains and
cannot be intermingled. Reference in this
regard has been made to Emperor v. Nazir
Ahmed [AIR 1945 PC 18] and Shaukat Ali
Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim [PLD 1994 SC 281].

xxxix. The learned counsel next contended that a

right to due process and fair trial is enshrined
in the Constitution and any finding recorded or
declaration given by this Court under Article
184(3) of the Constitution or by any
Commission appointed by this Court for the
said purpose would seriously violate such
right. He maintains that in the limited number
of cases where declarations have been issued
in exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution, such declarations have
invariably been issued on the basis of
admitted facts and or documents.
xl. The learned ASC has referred to various
judgments rendered by US Courts to argue
that even in foreign jurisdictions, while
commissions have been appointed to record
findings of fact, such jurisdiction has been
termed as an accusatory jurisdiction which
does not extend to recording convictions or
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 464
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

issuing declarations.

xli. The learned counsel has further maintained

that this Court has repeatedly held in a
number of cases that this Court would not
embark upon fishing and roving inquiries in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3)
of the Constitution. In support of his
arguments, the learned counsel has relied
upon Jam Madad Ali v. Asghar Ali Junejo [2016
SCMR 251] and Akhtar Hassan Khan v.
Federation of Pakistan [2012 SCMR 455].

xlii. The learned ASC has summed up his

submissions by stating that even if the entire
stance of the Respondents is disbelieved by
this Court, the matter requires a factual
inquiry which has to be undertaken by the
statutory bodies set up under the law and the
Constitution for the said purpose. Once the
facts have been uncovered and evidence has
been collected, the matters need to be placed
before a Court of competent jurisdiction for
trial in accordance with the law and in line
with the rights guaranteed under Article 10A
of the Constitution. It is only after such an
exercise has been undertaken that a person
found guilty can be convicted and visited with
various penalties and punishments provided
by the law and the Constitution.

14. On conclusion of the arguments of learned

counsel representing Respondents No.1 & 6 to 10, the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 465
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Prosecutor General, NAB was directed to inform this Court

as to why the aforesaid judgment of the High Court was not

challenged before this Court. Tracing the sequence of

events, the learned Prosecutor General informed us that

Respondent No.10 had moved an application for grant of

pardon on 20.04.2000. The Chairman, NAB granted full

pardon to him vide letter dated 21.04.2000 in exercise of

powers under Section 26 of the National Accountability

Bureau Ordinance, 1999 (NAB Ordinance). He further

pointed out that although an interim Reference was filed on

27.03.2004 wherein Respondent No.10 was arrayed as

accused No.7, since he was granted pardon on his request

on 21.04.2000 and his confessional statement was recorded

on 25.04.2000 by a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.PC he

was shown as a witness and not as an accused in the final

Reference. He points out that the final Reference was filed

on 16.11.2000 which was quashed by the Lahore High Court

on a Writ Petition filed by HPML and its Directors. He

submits that the judgment of the Lahore High Court was not

challenged before this Court because the competent

authorities in the NAB had decided that since the Lahore

High Court had unanimously quashed the Reference, it

would be a futile exercise to approach this Court by way of

an appeal.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 466
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

15. On being summoned by us, the Chairman,

National Accountability Bureau, (NAB) also appeared before

us along with the Prosecutor General, NAB. We asked him

whether NAB had taken any action or conducted any inquiry

or investigation on the basis of the information that had

come in the public domain indicating a number of citizens

including Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 held offshore companies

and properties worth Millions of Dollars for which there were

no verifiable sources of income and there were serious

allegations of corruption and money laundering had been

levelled against Respondent No.1. The Chairman, NAB

informed us that the NAB was awaiting initial inquiry and

investigation by the Regulators, before proceeding with

the matter. He submitted that the same stance was taken

by him before the Public Accounts Committee of the

National Assembly. He further submitted that in terms of

Section 18 read with Section 20 of the NAB Ordinance, the

NAB could only initiate investigations on receipt of a

complaint from State functionaries including Securities &

Exchange Commission of Pakistan and State Bank of

Pakistan, etc. His attention was drawn by us to Section 9(v)

and certain other provisions of the Ordinance which provide

independent powers to NAB to initiate inquiries,

investigations and proceedings in situations where a person

is alleged to be in possession of assets beyond his known

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 467
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

means. At this, the Chairman, NAB stated that certain

preliminary steps had been taken by collecting the requisite

information and as soon as it was finalized, he would

proceed further in accordance with the law.

16. It is interesting to note that NAB had initiated a

Reference bearing No.5 of 2000 involving HPML and its

Directors which included some of the Respondents and

other members of their families. The said Reference and

other proceedings initiated by NAB as well as the

confessional statement made by Respondent No.10

contained information which was found sufficient by NAB to

initiate the Reference. However, despite the fact that

information available with NAB had direct nexus with the

issues raised in these proceedings, no steps were taken by

NAB to investigate and inquire into the allegations that the

offshore companies and properties/businesses owned by

Respondents No.7 & 8 were acquired through laundered

funds or ill-gotten gains and could have a connection with

Respondent No.1. He was further asked to explain why a

judgment of the Lahore High Court in which reinvestigation

of matters contained in the Reference was disallowed was

not appealed before this Court. He responded that as a

matter of internal policy, he had sought opinion of its own

Law Officers who had opined that in view of the fact that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 468
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

since two Judges of the Lahore High Court had recorded

findings against the NAB, chances of success of an appeal

before this Court were limited. On the basis of such opinion,

it was decided not to file an appeal against the judgment of

the Lahore High Court. On being asked by us whether the

NAB wished to revisit its decision and reconsider the matter

in changed circumstances, and in view of fresh evidence

becoming available, the Chairman, NAB submitted that he

would stand by his earlier views.

17. The Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, (FBR)

also appeared in accordance with the directions issued by

us. He was assisted by Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana,

Additional Attorney General for Pakistan. At the very outset,

we asked the Chairman, FBR to update us qua the steps

taken by him pursuant to the Panama Papers and the

information contained therein becoming public. He informed

us that as soon as the Panama Leaks appeared in April

2016, the FBR immediately took up the matter and started

investigations / measures to collect information regarding

the persons, about 400 in numbers, who allegedly owned

offshore companies. He stated that there were practical and

procedural difficulties in finding the full names and

addresses of the persons whose names appeared in the

Panama Papers. On being pressed to disclose when such

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 469
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

information was sought, the Chairman, FBR hesitatingly

informed us that the first notice / correspondence was

initiated in October 2016. We cannot help but notice that

even the initial steps were halfheartedly initiated six months

after the afore-noted information came to light. It is

astonishing to see that while the matter was being widely

agitated and discussed in the Print and Electronic Media and

the Courts were being approached by different parties who

were clamoring for investigation and probe, the FBR had

gone into deep slumber and failed to initiate even the

preliminary steps towards ascertaining the identities and

other antecedents of the persons named in the Panama

Papers, let alone taking any action against them.

18. The complete and utter apathy shown by the

State functionaries / Departments including the FBR in this

matter besides being shocking has raised many questions

and the constant foot dragging on their part shows

complete and utter lack of interest and a desire to sweep

the matters under carpet. This is obviously at the behest of

those likely to be affected by deeper probe and

investigation into the matter. The Chairman, FBR informed

us that since a large number of persons named in the

Panama Papers were either non-filers or non-residents,

information and data regarding the said persons was not

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 470
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

available in the database of FBR. However, the matter had

to be coordinated with NADRA and other State agencies

charged with the responsibility of maintaining the records of

citizens to collect the requisite information in order to have

access to such persons. Further, since the record and

information relating to offshore companies was beyond the

territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan and located in a number of

tax havens including British Virgin Islands, letters were

written to the Foreign Office of Pakistan to coordinate with

their counterparts in the British Virgin Islands etc. in order

to collect the requisite information. However, so far no

appreciable progress has been made in this regard.

19. With reference to the Respondents in these

Constitution Petitions, the Chairman, FBR pointed out that

Respondents No.7 & 8 are non-residents and therefore not

amenable to the jurisdiction of the tax authorities in

Pakistan. He submits that although the said persons were

issued notices, they filed their replies on 21.11.2016 in

which the position taken by them was that since they were

non-resident Pakistanis, they were under no obligation to

file Returns or pay taxes on income generated outside

Pakistan. He, however, stated that the matter had not been

closed and if any material came to light which necessitated

any action on the part of the FBR against Respondents No.7

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 471
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

& 8, the same shall be initiated immediately in accordance

with the law.

20. The Chairman, FBR was asked to explain how

Respondent No.7 claimed to have an NTN when the same

was issued in 1995 and according to a Circular issued by the

FBR itself, all Tax Numbers issued upto 1998 stood

cancelled and fresh tax numbers could be obtained by filing

appropriate applications before the competent authorities

which had apparently not been done. His response was that

he had no specific information in this regard. However, the

learned Additional Attorney General submitted that

according to the records of FBR, Respondent No.7 was the

holder of an NTN which appeared in the Database of FBR.

He later confirmed that the earlier had subsequently

withdrawn and all tax numbers initially issued by the FBR

had been restored/revived.

21. As far as Respondent No.6 is concerned, the

Chairman, FBR submitted that she had also filed her

response on 21.11.2016 in which she had categorically

denied ownership of any foreign property or offshore

company. According to her stance, her brother (Respondent

No.7) had authorized her to deal with offshore companies

owned by him on his behalf.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 472
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

22. After hearing the Chairman, FBR we are

constrained to express our dissatisfaction and extreme

disappointment on the mode and manner in which the

premier taxation authority of the country has dealt with the

matter.

23. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan was

called upon to assist the Court on the legal issues raised in

these proceedings. In this regard, he made the following

submissions:-

i. There are three main cases pending before

this Court filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf;
Awami Muslim League Pakistan; and Jamaat-e-
Islami Pakistan, respectively. These are
opposition parties and seek disqualification of
the Leader of the House (Prime Minister). He
maintains that earlier challenges of the same
nature have already been dealt by this Court
in the judgment reported as Ishaq Khan
Khakwani v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
(PLD 2015 Supreme Court 275). He has
pointed out that a similar case (Constitution
Petition No.35 of 2016 titled as Muhammad
Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi & others) on
the basis of similar allegations has been filed
against one of the petitioners which is pending
before this Court and has not been heard so
far.

ii. This is a unique case in many respects

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 473
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

including the forum chosen and the form of

proceedings initiated. He argues that by way
of these proceedings, the petitioners seek a
writ of quo warranto and also reliefs which are
generally prayed for in election petitions. He
maintains that these are not proceedings in
the normal course and it is neither the
function nor practice of this Court to entertain
and proceed in matters of such nature in
exercise of its powers under Article 184(3) of
the Constitution. He further maintains that in
pith and substance, the matter relates to a
challenge to the election of a Member of the
National Assembly and a declaration is being
sought in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution. He also maintains that it has to
be kept in mind that any declaration granted
by this Court will be binding on all Courts and
Tribunals which would get guidance from how
this Court proceeds in the matter. He states
that the law laid down by this Court would be
applicable to about 1045 MNAs & MPAs who
would henceforth be governed by the same.

iii. The Attorney General for Pakistan submits

that he would restrict his formulations to the
following points:-
(a) What is the scope of Article 184(3) of the
Constitution with reference to the facts
and circumstances of the present case;
and

(b) Should this Court exercise jurisdiction

even if the case falls within the purview
of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 474
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

In this regard, the learned Attorney General

submits that jurisdiction of this Court can be

inquisitorial or adversarial. However, where

the inquisitorial jurisdiction is to be exercised,

it has to be established that a matter of public

importance requiring enforcement of

fundamental rights is involved. He maintains

that generally this jurisdiction is exercised

where relief is to be granted for benefit of the

society and or to protect under privileged

classes.

iv. He further states that although in Farzand Ali

v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970
Supreme Court 98) and Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993
Supreme Court 473), this Court had held that
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution can be exercised to issue orders
in the nature of quo warranto, the person
seeking such disqualification must prove the
same in adversarial proceedings. In this
context, he has also referred to the cases
reported as Ishaq Khan Khakwani v. Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2015 Supreme
Court 275) as well as Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi
v. Government of Sindh (2015 SCMR 810)
wherein this Court has exercised its powers
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

v. The learned Law Officer questioned whether

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 475
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

this Court is an appropriate forum to issue a

declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution considering that in making such
declaration, provisions of Article 10A of the
Constitution would also be applicable. He
further submits that this Court must also
consider the fact that a declaration issued by
this Court under Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution, the mode and manner in which
such declaration is issued will be binding on
all Courts and Tribunals which would be called
upon to issue such declarations in future.

vi. Elaborating his first formulation, the learned

Attorney General submitted that it has to be
determined which fundamental rights are
under threat or have actually been breached,
who is the complainant of the alleged breach
and in this regard which facts need to be
proved. He further submits that the burden of
proof that a fundamental right has been
breached is on the person complaining of such
breach and once such breach has been proved
to the satisfaction of this Court, an
appropriate order can be passed for
enforcement of such right. He, however,
maintains that the person complaining of a
breach of fundamental right must first
establish a legal obligation which if not
performed has led to the alleged breach of a
Fundamental Right.

vii. In the context of this case, the learned

Attorney General submitted that in the first
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 476
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

place the petitioners have not shown which of

their Fundamental Rights have been breached
by Respondent No.1. He further submits that
the petitioners have neither alleged nor
established that Respondent No.1 was under
any obligation to disclose certain facts which
obligation, the latter has failed to fulfill which
has led to breach of some Fundamental Right
available to the petitioners.

viii. The learned Attorney General for Pakistan

further submitted that in order for this Court
to exercise powers under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution, it must be established that in
addition of enforcement of fundamental rights
a question of public importance is involved in
the matter. In this context, it was pointed out
to the learned Attorney General that vide
order dated 03.11.2016, this Court had
already passed an order with the consent of
all concerned that a petition under Article
184(3) of the Constitution was maintainable in
the facts and circumstances of the present
case and all requirements of the said Article
had been met. Confronted with this situation,
he submitted that even if this Court
determines that it has jurisdiction in the
matter, it would have to be seen whether or
not jurisdiction ought to be exercised to grant
the relief sought in the petitions.

ix. Referring to the case of Farzand Ali v. Province

of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 Supreme Court
98), the learned Law Officer submitted that
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 477
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the same was no longer good law in view of

the fact that the judgment was rendered
under the provisions of Constitution of
Pakistan, 1962 without mentioning that the
High Courts had power to issue a writ of quo
warranto against the holder of public office as
defined in Article 242 of the said Constitution.
The said definition included Members of the
National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies.
He maintains that under the Constitution of
Pakistan, 1973 a writ in the nature of quo
warranto cannot be issued against Members
of the National or Provincial Assemblies in
view of the fact that such persons are not
included in the definition of holder of public
office. He submits that since the
Parliamentarians hold elected offices, the
mechanisms provided in Articles 62 and 63 of
the Constitution and provisions of the
Representation of People Act, 1976 (RoPA)
have to be resorted to. The argument of the
learned Attorney General is farfetched, self-
contradictory and contrary to our judicial
precedents and has not impressed us.

x. The learned Attorney General further

submitted that a declaration as visualized in
Article 62 of the Constitution cannot be issued
by this Court in view of the fact that such
declaration requires an evidentiary hearing.
He pointed out that in a few cases where such
declarations were issued by this Court, the
same were issued on the basis of admitted
facts or undisputed material available on
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 478
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

record. In this context, he referred to the

cases reported as Ishaq Khan Khakwani v.
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2015
Supreme Court 275) and Mahmood Akhtar
Naqvi v. Government of Sindh (2015 SCMR
810).

xi. The learned Law Officer also submitted that in

the event of an allegation of corrupt or illegal
practices, Sections 42A and 82 of the RoPA
provide a procedure of filing a complaint and
its trial by a District & Sessions Judge. He
further submits that matters being agitated
before this Court are already pending before
the Election Commission of Pakistan. As such,
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under
Article 184(3) of the Constitution in the facts
and circumstances of the case is not called
for. He maintains that there are factual
controversies involved which require
evidentiary hearings and the law provides the
mode, manner and forum for such hearings.
He, therefore, concluded by submitting that
special care is to be taken in exercise of
jurisdiction. He maintains that a declaration
issued by this Court would have serious and
far-reaching consequences and a stigma will
be attached to the name of Respondent No.1
who is the head of the largest political party of
the country. To support his contentions, he
relied upon the cases of Aftab Ahmad Khan v.
Muhammad Ajmal (PLD 2010 SC 1066) and
Ishaq Khan Khakwani v. Mian Muhammad
Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 275).
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 479
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

24. In rebuttal, Mr. Naeem Bukhari, learned ASC for

the petitioner in Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016,

submitted that:-

i. Date of Birth of Respondent No.7 is

01.05.1972. According to the documents
produced on behalf of Respondents No.6, 7 &
8 through CMA No.7531 of 2016, the land for
Gulf Steel was allotted on 12.04.1974 and the
Rent Agreement was signed on 12.06.1974.
On the said dates, Respondent No.7 was two
years old; and

ii. When Tripartite Agreement for sale of 75%

shares in Gulf Steel was executed in 1978,
Respondent No.7 was six years old. The
outstanding liabilities of the Gulf Steel in 1978
were as follows:-
a) Approximately 27 Million Dirhams
owed to BCCI;

b) Approximately 36 Million Dirhams

owed to others;

c) Aggregated liability at the relevant

time was in excess of 63 Million
Dirhams.

iii. The learned ASC for the Petitioner pointed out

that sale of 75% shares in Gulf Steel fetched
about 21 Million Dirhams. Admittedly, the
entire amount was paid to BCCI. This left an
outstanding liability of 6 Million Dirhams to
BCCI and 36 Million Dirhams to others.
Therefore, when the balance 25%
shareholding in the Gulf Steel was sold in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 480
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

1980 for 12 Million Dirhams (when

Respondent No.7 was eight years old), there
was nothing which could possibly be invested
in Qatar in view of the fact that an outstanding
liability of 42 Million Dirhams still existed. He
further submits that in the first affidavit of
Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi, it was merely
stated that 12 Million Dirhams received from
sale of 25% shares in Gulf Steel were, applied
as per instructions of Mian Muhammad
Sharif. However, in the second affidavit, an
improvement was made and it was claimed
that the said amount was given to the elder
brother of Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber in Dubai
for investment in the real estate business of Al
Thani Family. This improvement was obviously
an afterthought and an attempt to lend
credence to an otherwise baseless and
concocted tale.

iv. The learned counsel also maintains that there

is a stark and noticeable difference between
the stance taken by Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No.7 before this Court. While
Respondent No.1 has constantly taken the
position that the funds generated from the
sale of Gulf Steel and Azizia Steel Mills at
Jeddah were used for purchasing the London
Properties and the investment in Qatar was
neither mentioned in his various speeches nor
in the concise statement filed before this
Court, the stance taken by Respondent No.7 is
that the said properties were received by way
of a settlement with the Al Thani Family.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 481
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

v. The learned ASC submits that this Court

should believe the word of the Prime Minister
of the country and ignore the statement of his
children who at the relevant time were minors.
In the said scenario, both letters issued by
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber lose their
significance and the story built on the same
falls to the ground. In that case, it can safely
be concluded that the real owner of the
Mayfair Properties is Respondent No.1.
Further, there is no explanation whatsoever
available on the record showing the source of
funds for acquiring the properties in London.

vi. He maintained that despite being asked

neither learned counsel for Respondent No.1
nor for Respondents No.6, 7 & 8 submitted
any documents showing real owner of the
Mayfair Properties, the source of funds or the
money trail.

vii. He further submits that Respondent No.6 has

denied the document as well as her signatures
thereon through which LZ Nominee Limited
was reappointed as Nominee Director with
effect from 13.05.2004. He maintains that in
the first place, the said document was not
made or forged by the Petitioners. It appeared
in the Daily Guardian and was obtained from
the correspondent of the said Newspaper but
more importantly the document in question
was acted upon. In this context, he drew our
attention to a document appearing on page 12
of CMA No.895 of 17 which is a photocopy of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 482
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the record of the Nescol Limited showing

names of Directors of the said Company from
time to time. It shows that LZ Nominee
Limited was reappointed as Nominee Director
on 13.05.2004 and resigned on 26.01.2006.
He maintained that 13.05.2004 is the exact
date which was mentioned in the aforesaid
resolution containing the signatures of
Respondent No.6 (Maryam Safdar). This
unmistakably establishes that Respondent
No.6 was, at all relevant times, the beneficial
owner of Nescol Limited and the Mayfair
Properties held in its name.

viii. The learned counsel further maintained that a

declaration is liable to be issued against
Respondent No.1 to the effect that he is
neither truthful nor honest in view of the fact
that he failed to disclose the correct facts and
source of funds for purchase of London
Properties. He referred to his address to the
nation as well as the speech made on the floor
of the house in which there was no mention of
the investment made in Qatar and the funds
generated from the said alleged investment.
He vehemently argued that the fact that
Respondent No.1 had lied to the Nation, to the
National Assembly and to the highest Court of
the country had clearly and unambiguously
been established.

25. Mr. Muhammad Taufiq Asif, learned ASC for the

petitioner in Constitution Petition No.3 of 2017 in his

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 483
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

rebuttal arguments submitted that Respondent No.1 had

misstated / withheld the material facts in his speech on the

floor of the house. Therefore, the privilege claimed under

Article 66 of the Constitution was not available to him as the

said Article is subject to the Constitution. He further

maintained that Respondent No.1 had violated his oath by

putting his personal interest over and above the national

interest and had made an effort to secure the same by

making false statements on the floor of the house as well as

before this Court. He was therefore not truthful and ameen.

He further maintained that despite having categorically

stated that all relevant records regarding acquisition of

assets in London will be produced, Respondent No.1 has

consistently failed to do so which has rendered him liable to

be disqualified. He referred to Nasir Mehmood v. Imran

Masood [PLD 2010 SC 1089 @ 1117] to submit that

Respondent No.1 did not meet the criteria of being truthful

and ameen as provided in Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution.

26. Mr. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, petitioner in

Constitution Petition No.29 of 2016 sought permission of the

Court to make a few submissions, which was granted by us.

He submitted that the Prime Minister amongst other

capacities is the custodian of the treasury of the country. A

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 484
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

person who is not truthful, dishonest or corrupt cannot be

expected to enjoy the trust of the people. He maintained

that this is one reason why people of Pakistan are unwilling

to pay taxes as they do not trust the custodians of their tax

money. He further submitted that a leader is a role model

and leadership by its example uplifts the moral values of

the society as has been seen in the history of Islam as well

as the world. He expressed his full confidence in the Court

and prayed that the petition may be accepted.

27. Senator Siraj ul Haq, petitioner in Constitution

Petition No.3 of 2017 was also granted an opportunity to

address the Court. He submitted that Respondent No.1 had

failed to explain or justify the sources of funds which were

used to acquire assets in London. He maintained that it is

incumbent upon this Court to decide the matter in

accordance with the law to uphold the Constitution and

safeguard the interests of 200 Million citizens of the country.

28. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties

at length and examined the record submitted by the parties

before us at various stages of the hearings. To our mind,

inter alia, the following questions need to be answered on

the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, the assertions made in the petitions and the stance

adopted by the Respondents in their respective concise

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 485
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

statements. We have also considered additional documents

filed by the parties through numerous Civil Miscellaneous

Applications filed at various stages of hearing of these

petitions:

i. What was the source of funds for acquisition

of the Mayfair Properties in London, UK?

ii. Whether Respondents No.7 & 8, owing to their

tender ages had the financial resources in
early nineties to possess, purchase or acquire
the Mayfair Properties?

iii. Who is the real and beneficial owner of Nescol

Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited?

iv. Whether sufficient material has been placed

on record to explain the source of funds used
for acquisition of the Mayfair Properties?

v. Whether Respondent No.1 has any direct or

indirect, legal or beneficial right, title or
interest in the Mayfair Properties or any of the
businesses of Respondents No.7 and /or 8.

vi. Whether enough documentary evidence

comprising of account statements and
banking documents etc has been produced
before us to establish generation of funds
through legitimate sources and movement of
such funds through banking channels for
acquisition of the Mayfair Properties and
businesses of Respondents No.7 & 8. If the
answer is in the negative, what is its effect?

vii. Whether the two letters dated 05.11.2016 and

22.12.2016 submitted on behalf of
Respondent No.7 allegedly written by Sheikh
Hamad can be taken into consideration for the
purpose of substantiating the stance taken by
Respondent No.7

viii. Whether the business transactions allegedly

occurring in 1974, 1978 and 1980 in Dubai
and the documentation produced on behalf of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 486
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.7 in this regard show

legitimate business activity generating
sufficient funds to have supported subsequent
transactions claimed to have been undertaken
in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UK?

ix. Whether there is sufficient material to support

the claim of Respondent No.7 that a sum of
12 million Dirhams was invested in the real
estate business of the Thani family in Qatar
which multiplied manifold between 1980 to
2000 and consequently led to availability of
requisite funds for settlement of dues of
Hudaibiya Paper Mills Limited (HPML),
provision of funds to Respondents No.7 & 8 in
Saudi Arabia and the UK respectively and
transfer of Mayfair Properties in favor of
Respondent No.7 by way of a final settlement
of accounts?

x. Whether Respondent No.1 failed to provide a

satisfactory explanation regarding the
ownership of the Mayfair Properties and
whether he was able to satisfy this Court that
he has no nexus or connection with the
Mayfair Properties and other businesses of his
children?

xi. Whether Respondent No.6 was/is the

beneficial owner of the Mayfair Properties.
What is the effect of the trust document
allegedly executed between her and
Respondent No.7. What is the legal effect of
the letter written by Mossack Fonseca to
Financial Investigation Agency of British Virgin
Islands (BVI), confirming that the Respondent
No.6 is the beneficial owner of the Mayfair
Properties?

xii. Whether Respondent No.6 is/was at the

relevant time a dependent of Respondent
No.1 and if so, whether Respondent No.1 had
rendered himself liable to disqualification by
making a misstatement in his Nomination
Papers for the general elections of 2013 and
concealing the same from the tax authorities?
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 487
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xiii. Whether Respondent No.1 had been guilty of

tax evasion in consequence of which he was
liable to be disqualified in terms of Article 62
(1) (o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic
of Pakistan, 1973?

xiv. Whether the affidavits submitted on behalf of

Mr. Tariq Shafi can be relied upon and
believed in order to establish generation and
transmission of funds in the manner claimed
by Respondents No.1 & 7?

xv. Whether sufficient material has been placed

on record explaining the source of funds for
establishing Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia and its sale in 2005?

xvi. What were the sources of funds utilized by

Respondent No.8 to set up Flagship
Investments Limited and a number of other
companies, set up/taken over by Respondent
No.8?

xvii. Whether Respondent No.7 adequately

explained the mode and manner and the
financial resources utilized for setting up Hill
Metal Establishment in Saudi Arabia.

xviii. Does Respondent No.1 have any direct,

indirect, legal, beneficial or equitable right,
title or interest in Hill Metals Establishment,
considering that he has regularly received
amounts ostensibly by way of gifts for
amounts in excess of US $ 7,612,350 from
Respondent No.7? In the year 2015-16 alone a
sum of approximately US $ 2.3 Million were
received from the account of Hill Metals
Establishment.

xix. Whether regular and consistent receipt of

huge amounts of money from/on account of
Hill Metals Establishment shows a financial/
ownership interest and stake of Respondent
No.1 in the said business.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 488
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

xx. Whether there are contradictions and

discrepancies in the speeches, press
interviews and statements made by
Respondent No.1 and other members of his
family at different times before different fora
explaining ownership of Mayfair Properties
and the sources of funds for purchase of the
Mayfair Properties and other businesses of
Respondents No.7 & 8. Further, whether there
are irreconcilable discrepancies in the stance
taken by Respondent No.1 and the
statements, interviews and plea taken by
Respondent No.7 and other members of his
family before this Court?

xxi. Whether there is enough evidence available

before this Court furnishing basis for
disqualification of Respondent No.1 or to issue
a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the
Constitution and disqualify them from being
member of the Parliament?

29. In order to answer the afore-noted amongst a

host of other questions which have arisen during these

proceedings (all of which need not necessarily be dealt with

by us), we consider it appropriate to examine the respective

pleas taken by Respondents Nos.1, 6 to 8, 9 & 10 in the

respective concise statements filed by them and

submissions made by their learned counsel before us. It

may also be noted that during the course of proceedings in

these matters which were spread over 26 full day hearings

before this Bench, additional documents were filed at

regular intervals presumably to substantiate what was

being asserted and to answer various queries raised by the

Court regarding matters considered relevant in order to

understand and resolve the controversy before us.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 489
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

30. These cases arose out of documents recovered

from the database of Mossack Fonseca, a Panama based law

firm engaged in the business of establishing, structuring

and managing offshore companies on behalf of its clients

from all over the world, including Pakistan. On the basis of

the said information which was available in the public

domain it was alleged that assets and businesses were held

in the names of offshore companies which were owned by

Respondent No.1 i.e. Prime Minister of Pakistan and

members of his family including Respondents No.6 to 8. At

the heart of the controversy were four residential flats

bearing No.16, 16-a, 17 & 17-a, Avenfield House 118,

Parklane London, UK (hereinafter referred to as the Mayfair

Properties). The Mayfair Properties were held in the names

of two offshore companies namely Nescol Limited and

Nielsen Enterprises Limited registered in the British Virgin

Islands (BVI). It was alleged that the real owner of the

Mayfair Properties was Respondent No.1 though beneficial

ownership of the same was shown to be that of Respondent

No.6, who is the daughter of Respondent No.1. She was at

all relevant times and continues to be his dependent. Since

Respondent No.1 had failed to declare the assets of his

dependent daughter in the nomination papers filed by him

for his election to the National Assembly and his yearly

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 490
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Statements of Assets and Liabilities required to be filed

under Section 42-A of RoPA and had consistently failed to

disclose or declare the same in his Tax Returns/Wealth Tax

Statements, there had been a conscious and deliberate

concealment of facts which must lead to a declaration that

he was not honest and ameen within the contemplation

of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Consequently, he was

liable to be disqualified from being a member of the

Parliament.

31. In addition to the above, allegations of money

laundering, corruption and use of corrupt practices on the

part of Respondent No.1 were levelled. Questions were

raised regarding the businesses being run by Respondents

No.7 & 8 in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. The said

Respondents are the sons of Respondent No.1. Serious

questions were also raised regarding the sources of

financing of such businesses. Allegations of tax evasion and

filing of incorrect/inaccurate tax returns were also levelled.

32. Faced with the disclosures that the Mayfair

Properties were owned by the children of Respondent No.1

and the allegations that he is the real owner of these

properties, Respondent No.1 who is the Prime Minister of

Pakistan, addressed the Nation on 05.04.2016 on national

television. This address was also televised by private media

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 491
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

networks. He took the stance that on being sent into exile in

the year 2000, he and his family had set up a Steel Mill in

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with financing obtained from Saudi

Banks and loans given by friends and well-wishers. He

stated that the business in question was sold in 2005 and

the funds received from such sale were utilized by his sons

for their various businesses. He also stated that his son

Hassan Nawaz (Respondent No.8), had been residing in

London since 1994 and his other son Hussain Nawaz

(Respondent No.7) was residing and doing business in Saudi

Arabia since 2000. Both were engaged in lawful businesses.

He lamented that political opponents would criticize the

legitimate businesses of his children whether these were

conducted within Pakistan or abroad. He denied any

impropriety or wrongdoing on the part of his family. It

appears that the speech failed to have the desired effect.

The opposition parties as well as the Print and Electronic

Media continued to allege wrongdoing on the part of

Respondent No.1 and his family. There were calls for his

accountability. This appears to have prompted Respondent

No.1 to deliver another speech. This time, he spoke in the

National Assembly of Pakistan on 16.05.2016. The said

speech was also televised by the National Television

Corporation Network all over Pakistan as well as other

private TV Channels. In the said speech, Respondent No.1

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 492
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

took the position that he had no personal connection with

the offshore companies or Mayfair Properties mentioned in

the Panama Papers. His name did not feature in any of the

leaked documents. Although, he had been advised not to

get embroiled in the controversy, but since the name of his

family was mentioned in the said Papers, he considered it

necessary to clarify the position so that the truth would

come out. He stated that he did not need to seek any legal

or constitutional immunity. He categorically stated that he

had nothing to hide, his past and present conduct was like

an open book and he was not averse to any form of

accountability or investigation through any mode and

before any forum.

33. Referring to the source of funds for the Mayfair

Properties he stated that pursuant to nationalization of the

family businesses in 1972 his late father Mian Muhammad

Sharif went to Dubai and set up a Steel Factory under the

name and style of Gulf Steel for which a license was granted

by the Government of UAE. A long term lease was also

granted to set up the factory over a plot of land measuring

1 million square feet. Subsequently, this factory was sold in

1980 at an approximate price of 33.37 Million Dirhams

equivalent to US$ 9 Million. In the same speech, he also

stated that when he and his family were sent into exile in
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 493
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

2000 his father set up a Steel Mill in Jeddah for which the

amount received from sale of the factory at Dubai was also

helpful. The factory at Jeddah was sold in June, 2005 for

about 64 Million Riyals equivalent to US$ 17 Million. He

stated that these were the sources and resources which

were utilized for businesses of his children and purchase of

the Mayfair Properties. He also stated that all records and

documentation relating to Dubai and Jeddah factories were

available and would be produced before any forum to clear

the name of his family.

34. It appears that even the second speech failed to

settle the storm of criticism caused by the sudden and

unexpected disclosures coming in the public domain

through Panama Leaks. Therefore, initially efforts were

made by/and on behalf of Respondent No.1 to refer the

matter to an Inquiry Commission. A letter was accordingly

written by the Government of Pakistan through Secretary,

Ministry of Law & Justice, to the Honorable Chief Justice of

Pakistan requesting him to appoint a Commission of Inquiry.

However, such request was declined for reasons mentioned

in the letter issued by the Registrar of this Court in response

to the said letter. The matter was also referred to a

Parliamentary Committee with the consent of the ruling

party which is headed by Respondent No.1 as well as most

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 494
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

of the opposition parties, to agree on a modus operandi and

possibly pass legislation for appointing a Commission of

Inquiry to conduct an inquiry/investigation into the matter. It

is therefore clear that there was consensus across the board

amongst all parties that there was a need for inquiry and

investigation to ascertain the true facts. However,

unfortunately no consensus could be reached amongst the

Parliamentarians regarding the mode, manner, scope and

Terms of References (ToRs) of such Commission of Inquiry.

This led to the present petitions being filed before this Court

on behalf of Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, Chairman,

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Head

of Awami Muslim League Pakistan and Senator Siraj ul Haq,

the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami. The petitioners are leaders of

Political Parties which have representation in the National

Assembly of Pakistan. They seek inter alia, disqualification

of Respondents No.1, 9 & 10 as Members of the National

Assembly; a direction that looted / laundered money along

with properties purchased through offshore companies

should be recovered; a direction to Chairman NAB to

discharge his obligations under Section 18 read with Section

9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) and

an order directing Respondents No.2 & 3 to initiate claims

on behalf of the Government of Pakistan for recovery of the

properties subject matter of these petitions (Mayfair

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 495
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Properties, etc), and also a direction to Respondent No.5,

Federal Board of Revenue to probe and scrutinize tax

returns and asset declarations of Respondent No.1 and his

family.

35. During the course of hearings, transcripts of

various television interviews given by Respondents No.6, 7

& 8 were also produced before us. These have not been

denied. It appears that Respondent No.7 Hussain Nawaz in

an interview with the anchor of a television channel stated

that the Mayfair Properties had been purchased from profits

on investments made by his late grandfather Mian

Muhammad Sharif in Dubai in 1980. Yet in another

interview, he stated that the said Properties had been

purchased by him (Hussain Nawaz) in 2006 with funds

received from sale of the Azizia Steel Mills at Jeddah.

Surprisingly, the said Respondent has not made any

attempt before us to clarify, explain or reconcile the

aforesaid patently contradictory statements made in two

different interviews. The series of contradictions did not end

here. After the parties had filed their concise statements a

totally new dimension was introduced in this saga when in a

dramatic turn of events the learned counsel representing

the children of Respondent No.1 suddenly produced a letter

purportedly written by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 496
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Thani (Sheikh Hamad), statedly a member of the Royal

Family of the Kingdom of Qatar. The antecedents,

international reputation and credibility of the said

gentleman, as pointed out by Mr. Naeem Bukhari, learned

ASC for the Petitioner, and not specifically contradicted by

the learned counsel for the Respondents, are, it is stated

with great respect, not very enviable. It appears that he

is/has been the subject of investigations for doubtful money

across borders and similar activities in many countries. The

least said the better about the evidentiary value and

admissibility of the letters issued by him for a number of

legal and procedural reasons. These need not be gone into

because the letters in question have not been proved in

accordance with law, are ex facie based upon hearsay and

not substantiated by any credible material, let alone

document(s)/evidence. However, suffice it to say at this

stage that the Respondents relied upon these letters to take

the position that funds generated through sale of Gulf Steel

in 1980 (12 Million Dirhams against sale of 25% stake in

Gulf Steel Mills in favour of Mr. Abdallah Kaid Al Ahli) were,

on the instructions of late Mian Muhammad Sharif, father of

Respondent No.1 and grandfather of Respondents No.6 to 8,

handed over to the older brother of Sheikh Hamad namely

Sheikh Fahad bin Jassim bin Jabir Al Thani (Sheikh Fahad). It

is claimed that these funds were given for the purpose of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 497
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

investment of the same in the real estate business of the

Thani Family in Qatar. This investment was statedly made

on the alleged basis of longstanding and close personal and

business relations of late Mian Muhammad Sharif, father of

Respondent No.1 and grandfather of Respondents No.6, 7 &

8 with the father of Sheikh Hamad and Sheikh Fahad and

the Thani Family of Qatar.

36. Nevertheless, coming back to the sequence of

events set out by Respondents No.7 & 8 in their pleadings

and submissions of their learned counsel, in order to

substantiate the transactions of sale of Gulf Steel in Dubai,

photocopy of a Tripartite Agreement between Gulf Steel

acting through Mian Muhammad Tariq Shafi who was

allegedly acting on instructions and on behalf of Mian

Muhammad Sharif, Mr. Abdallah Kaid Al Ahli and BCCI was

placed on record. This agreement shows sale of 75% shares

in Gulf Steel in favour of Al Ahli family in 1978. This

document indicates that a sum of 21,375,000 Dirhams was

paid by the Ahli Family as purchase price of 75% shares

owned by Mian Muhammad Sharif in Gulf Steel. The

agreement also shows that at the time of sale of 75%

shares of Mian Muhammad Sharif, Gulf Steel owed about

27,664,589 Dirhams to BCCI alone. The total liability of Gulf

Steel was about 36,023,899.31 Dirhams. According to the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 498
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

terms of the agreement, the entire sale price for the 75%

shareholding was received by BCCI towards part payment of

amounts owed to it by Gulf Steel. There is no explanation

available on record and none has been offered despite

repeated queries by us as to whether the balance

outstanding amounts which were admittedly owed by Gulf

Steel or its shareholders/partners to BCCI and other

creditors were paid and if so by whom and from what

source(s). There has either been complete silence or

evasive responses on the part of the Respondents claiming

lack of information/documentation/record to answer this

question or fill these material gaps in the information.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 499
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and utilized the proceeds as instructed by him. At that

stage, we note that he did not disclose what those

instructions (regarding utilization of proceeds) were. It has

been asserted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners

that Gulf Steel/Mian Muhammad Sharif owed amounts much

in excess of 12 Million Dirhams when the 25% stake was

sold. Therefore, the entire amount was utilized to pay off

the outstanding liabilities. This assertion appeals to reason

and logic considering the contents of the documents

showing sale of Gulf Steel in favour of Mr. Abdallah Kaid Al

Ahli and the figures showing liabilities of Gulf Steel/Mian

Muhammad Sharif.

38. In an apparent effort to fill the gaps and provide

answers to various questions raised and reservations

expressed by us an improved version of the previous

affidavit was submitted by Mr. Tariq Shafi. This affidavit was

executed on 20.01.2017. This time it was stated that the

sum of 12 Million Dirhams was received in six different

installments, spread over a period of about six months.

Such installments were received from Mr. Abdallah Kaid Al

Ahli in cash and were delivered in cash for investment in the

real estate business of Thani Family to Sheikh Fahad who

was the older brother of Sheikh Hamad who has allegedly

passed away. He received the amounts on behalf of the

Thani Family in Dubai during his frequent visits. This

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 500
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

investment was allegedly made on the basis of some

understanding between their father Sheikh Jassim bin Jaber,

who has also allegedly passed away and late Mian

Muhammad Sharif who has also passed away. It is stated

that both had close family ties and business relations. It is

important to note that Mr. Tariq Shafi did not appear before

this Court and other than letters allegedly issued by Sheikh

Hamad and Affidavits of Mr. Tariq Shafi, the evidentiary

value of which is highly questionable to say the least, there

is not an iota of evidence or other credible material on

record to substantiate the above story regarding investment

of 12 Million Dirhams in Qatar.

39. We have found it strange that while all other

transactions including setting up of Gulf Steel, obtaining

financing for it, repayment of dues of BCCI, furnishing of

guarantees stipulated in the Tripartite Agreement, etc. were

undertaken by involvement of Banks / Financial Institutions,

the entire alleged transaction related to investment of 12

Million Dirhams in Qatar is claimed to have been undertaken

through cash transactions without documentation of any

nature being executed by the parties evidencing such

transaction(s). There is not a shred of evidence showing the

terms and conditions on the basis of which this sum of 12

Million Dirhams was invested in the real estate business of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 501
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the Thani Family. Late Mian Muhammad Sharif was a

seasoned businessman of long standing. We find it hard to

believe that he instructed Mr. Tariq Shafi to handover 12

Million Dirhams in cash to Sheikh Fahad for investment in

his fathers business without any documentation

whatsoever. The learned counsel for the Respondents have

also failed to explain to us the terms and conditions on the

basis of which the alleged business arrangement between

Mian Muhammad Sharif and the Thani Family took place. No

evidence or material of any nature whatsoever has been

produced to show that any relationship being claimed by

the Respondents actually existed, what part the late Mian

Muhammad Sharif played in this business relationship,

whether or not any accounts were maintained and if at all

there was any interaction in person or otherwise between

late Mian Muhammad Sharif and the Thani Family. The

entire story has been woven around two letters and two

affidavits, the contents of which we have found to be

dubious and hard to believe.

40. Notwithstanding what has been stated above,

the story was stretched further by stating that for the next

about 20 years the funds were left alone, apparently

forgotten or intentionally kept untouched and unaccounted

for by late Mian Muhammad Sharif. During this time,

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 502
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

apparently the funds continued to multiply expotentially at

a very healthy rate. However, between 2001 to 2004

various sums aggregating US $ 4,207,925 which allegedly

constituted a part of the return on the initial investment of

12 Million Dirhams were allegedly transmitted to the

account of Respondent No.8 to help him set up his business

in the UK. Another sum of US $ 8 Million is claimed to have

been paid to Al Tawfeeq Investment Company to satisfy a

decree issued by the London High Court against Hudaibiya

Paper Mills Limited (HPML) and some of its Directors. Other

sums aggregating US $ 5,410,000 were claimed to have

been given to Respondent No.7 for setting up his business

(Azizia Steel Mills) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly,

there is no documentation, record of banking transactions

or any verifiable money trail to show that the said funds

which ended up in UK and Saudi Arabia at various times,

originated from Qatar and were part of the amounts

allegedly owed by the Thani Family to late Mian Muhammad

Sharif on his initial investment of 12 Million Dirhams. The

record does however indicate that Respondent No.8 who till

the year 1999 was a student and was (according to his own

admission which has not been disowned or denied) not

earning anything, at all, was suddenly able to set up

Flagship Investments Company and had more than Half a

Million UK Pounds available to him to start a real estate

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 503
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

business and later, register/take over and operate a number

of other companies for the purpose of running and

expanding his business. The funds used by these businesses

and the sources of the same, although not the subject

matter of the present proceedings, also raise question

marks, owing to the fact that these were being received

from unknown and unverifiable sources, which have not

been explained to us and were used by the sons of the

holder of an elected office who also happened to hold the

office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan on three different

occasions. No effort has been made to provide even the

basic answers to such questions, considering that accusing

fingers are being pointed towards Respondent No.1, who is

the sitting Prime Minister of Pakistan and has held high

public offices since 1985.

41. It has further been claimed on behalf of

Respondents No.7 & 8 (without proof) that late Mian

Muhammad Sharif had instructed the Thani Family that the

beneficiary of the proceeds of his investment will be his

oldest grandson namely Hussain Nawaz (Respondent No.7).

Late Mian Muhammad Sharif breathed his last in October,

2004 where-after it was claimed that in 2006, the Thani

Family settled the accounts of investment made by him. In

terms of the said settlement, it was claimed on behalf of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 504
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Respondent No.7 that in addition to other amounts paid

earlier and as part of the settlement, in lieu of balance

payable amount of US $ 8,039,753, bearer certificates of

the two offshore companies namely Nescol Limited and

Nielsen Enterprises Limited which owned the Mayfair

Properties were handed over by a representative of the

Thani Family to a representative of Respondent No.7 in

Qatar as the bearer certificates in question were being held

in Qatar.

42. It is important at this stage to point out that the

Respondents have all along admitted that they were in

physical possession and using Mayfair Properties since

1993/1996 when the same appear to have been acquired by

two offshore/BVI registered companies namely Nescol

Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited. However, it has

been claimed that the Thani Family owned the said offshore

companies and the Mayfair Properties. On account of their

family relations with the late Mian Muhammad Sharif, the

Thani Family had allowed Respondents No.7 and 8 to occupy

and use the said properties while they were studying in

London. No effort was made, despite questions asked, to

explain why two young men, who were studying in London,

needed four large independent flats to live in. Further, once

Respondent No.7 (Hussain Nawaz) admittedly left UK to

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 505
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

come home and later started businesses in Saudi Arabia,

why Respondent No.8 (Hasan Nawaz) continued to hold on

to four flats for at least the next six years till 2006 when the

same were allegedly given to Respondent No.7 as part of a

settlement.

43. The above claim appears to be in contradiction

to an interview of Respondent No.8 with Tim Sebastian of

BBC London (neither the interview nor its contents have

been denied by Respondent No.8). Respondent No.8 was

specifically asked by Mr. Sebastian if the Flats he was living

in had been acquired by his father through various offshore

companies. He responded by saying that he was living on

rental basis and rent for the same came from Pakistan,

every quarter, from the family business in Pakistan. He also

stated that he was a student at that time and was not

earning. It is therefore clear that at least three different

versions about ownership of the Mayfair Properties, and

purchase of the same are available on the record not to

speak of yet another version in which the first lady allegedly

stated in an interview that the properties in question were

purchased in the year 2000 for use of their children who

were studying in London.

44. In order to substantiate the claim of a settlement

with Thani Family, a photocopy of an unauthenticated

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 506
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

handwritten note has been produced. It has some random

figures/calculations on it. Nobody has even tried to explain

to us, who made these calculations and on what basis.

Further, a print out of a computerized spread sheet which

too is unsigned and unauthenticated has also been

produced. Besides other calculations, it gives details of the

aforesaid amounts paid to Respondents No.7 & 8 as well as

Al-Tawfeeq Investment Company, which for ease of

understanding are given in the following table:-

i. 8 million Year 2000 Al Tawfeeq

ii. 1st payment to Respondent No.7 ( Azizia Steel) US$ 650,000
Year 2001
iii. 2nd payment to Respondent No.7 ( Azizia Steel) US$ 3,160,000
Year 2002
iv. 3rd payment to Respondent No.7 ( Azizia Steel) US$ 1,600,000
Year 2003
v. Final payment to Respondent No.7 (Mayfair Properties) US$
8,039,753 Year 2006

Total = US$ 13,449,753 (including Mayfair Properties)

vi. 1st payment to Respondent No.8 US $ 1,038,569 Year 2001

vii. 2nd payment to Respondent No.8 US $ 461,333 Year 2002
viii. 3rd payment to Respondent No.8 US $ 1,771,257 Year 2003
ix. 4th payment to Respondent No.8 US $ 936,766 Year 2004

Total = US $ 4,207,925

The spread sheet shows that interest was paid on

the so called initial investment of 12 Million Dirhams

calculated at the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)

from 1980 onwards till the alleged final settlement. This

document is an obvious but amateurish exercise in reverse

accounting in order to show accrual of money and then its

alleged payment/distribution under various heads of

account, to create a semblance of availability and utilization

of legitimate funds. No effort has been made to explain

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 507
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

why, if at all funds were invested in Qatar in Dirhams (of

which there is no evidence), for the purpose of investment

in the real estate business of the Thani Family (of which

there is not an iota of evidence either) the returns

mysteriously accruing and multiplying over the next twenty

years were calculated in US Dollars. Further, the alleged

investment was admittedly not made by placement of the

same in a Bank or financial institution or some investment

company. Why, how and on the basis of what understanding

or arrangement could returns on the alleged investment be

linked to and calculated on the basis of LIBOR? In our

opinion, the document is bogus, has no legal or evidentiary

value and we have no hesitation in out rightly rejecting it.

45. It may be pointed out that in the year 2000, the

London High Court had issued an ex parte decree against

HPML, Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mian Muhammad Shahbaz

Sharif and Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif in a recovery suit

filed by Al Tawfeeq Investment Company. On an application

accompanied by an affidavit for execution of the decree, the

London High Court passed a conditional attachment order

creating a charge on the Mayfair Properties. The petitioners

have heavily relied upon the attachment order of the

London High Court to allege that the properties were owned

by the Sharif Family in the year 2000, which led to

attachment of the same in execution of the decree passed

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 508
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

against HPML and the aforesaid members of the Sharif

Family who were presumably arrayed as defendants in their

capacity as directors of the Company and guarantors of the

loan. It, however, appears that the attachment was based

on an affidavit filed by Mr. Shezi Nackvi, an officer of Al

Tawfeeq Investment Company, stating that the said

members of the Sharif Family had proprietary rights/interest

in the said properties. The Respondents have, during the

course of proceedings before this Court procured and

produced an affidavit of Mr. Nackvi stating that he had

submitted the affidavit before the London High Court in the

year 2000 on the basis of information available in a Report

prepared by Mr. Abdul Rehman Malik, who was then working

in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) stating that the

Sharif Family owned these properties. Mr. Nackvi has further

stated in his affidavit that other than the afore-noted

information he had no independent information or

knowledge about the identity of the persons who owned the

Mayfair Properties. We have various reservations about the

contents, reliability and admissibility of the affidavit.

However, nothing turns either on the affidavit or the decree,

because in neither, Respondents No.1, 6, 7 or 8 find any

mention. The affidavit of Mr. Nackvi does however raise a

number of questions and issues relating to the family

businesses of Respondent No.1, including HPML etc for

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 509
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

which no answers have been found nor has any attempt

been made to furnish any answers backed by evidence and

documentation. It has however, been claimed that the

attachment order/charge was removed by the Court on

being informed by the decree holder that the Judgment

Debtors (members of the Sharif Family) had satisfied the

decree which was apparently for a sum of approximately US

$ 16 Million, by payment of a claimed settlement amount of

US $ 8 Million. No proof or documentation has been

produced to show the terms of settlement (if any).

Additionally, it has been claimed that this settlement

amount of US $ 8 Million was also paid by the Thani Family

to Al Tawfeeq Investment Company.

46. No documentation, paper trail, money

transactions, remittances records etc or any other record /

material has been placed before us to back this claim. We,

therefore, have no reason to believe that this amount was

indeed paid by the Thani Family. The question as to who

satisfied the decree of the London High Court against HPML

and its Directors has remained unanswered. It has further

been claimed that out of the settlement amount, a few

Million Dollars were also given to Respondent No.7 for the

purposes of his businesses in Saudi Arabia. No proof, paper

trail or bank records of the same have been furnished either

and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 510
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.7 has conveniently stated that no record, documentation

or evidence is available on account of the fact that most of

the persons directly involved in these transactions have

passed away, the records have not been retained by the

Banks/Financial Institutions and whatever records were

available with the Sharif Family were taken over by the NAB,

FIA and other authorities when the Government of

Respondent No.1 was over thrown in 1999. We are neither

convinced nor satisfied by the said explanation.

47. With regard to the Mayfair Properties, it has been

claimed on behalf of Respondent No.7 that on receipt of

bearer certificates of Nescol Limited and Nielsen Enterprises

Limited, he became the beneficial owner of the two

companies as well as the properties owned by the said

companies in 2006. However, in view of the fact that he has

two families and various children, in order to safeguard the

rights of both families, he appointed his sister (Respondent

No.6) as a Trustee to hold the shares in trust for him. In this

regard, a so called Trust Deed has also been produced which

appears to have been signed on 2 nd of February, 2006 in

Saudi Arabia by Respondent No.6 and in London, UK on

04.02.2006 by Respondent No.7. Admittedly, this is a

private document, was never registered or authenticated by

any competent authority and strangely enough was never

placed in any official record or disclosed to any authority

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 511
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

that had anything to do with the two offshore companies or

the Mayfair Properties held by the said companies.

Apparently, it saw the light of the day for the first time in

these proceedings before us. It has not been established as

to who is the real owner of the Mayfair Properties. However,

the facts and circumstances narrated herein raise a

suspicion that Respondent No.1 may be the real owner of

these properties. Such ownership may be direct, indirect,

beneficial or equitable. This requires probe and

investigation.

48. It is also important to highlight that in response

to letters written by the Financial Investigation Agency of

British Virgin Islands (FIA-BVI), Mossack Fonseca after

having collected information from Nescol Limited and

Nielsen Enterprises Limited confirmed to it that Mrs.

Maryam Safdar, Respondent No.6 whose address was

mentioned in the records of the two companies as Saroor

Palace, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia was the beneficial owner of the

two offshore companies which owned the Mayfair

Properties. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No.6 was

at that time living in exile in Saudi Arabia along with her

father (Respondent No.1) and other members of the Sharif

Family. We have asked the learned counsel for Respondents

No.6 to 8 why this information which according to them is

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 512
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

incorrect and erroneous was provided by Mossack Fonseca

to FIA-BVI. We have also pointed out to the learned counsel

representing the Respondents that this letter directly

contradicts the stance of Respondent No.7 who claims

beneficial ownership but has failed to produce any

document in this regard. However, other than feigning

complete ignorance we have not received any satisfactory

or even remotely convincing response. It is also noticeable

that by and large the Respondents have not denied the

information and data coming to light through what is

commonly known as Panama Leaks. The only document

specifically denied is a Resolution purportedly signed by

Respondent No.6. She has denied her signatures on the

Resolution dated 07.02.2006 through which she had

ostensibly reappointed LZ Nominee Limited as Nominee

Director of Nescol Limited, retrospectively, with effect from

13.05.2004. However, from the sketchy record made

available to us, we find that the said resolution was duly

acted upon by Nescol Limited. The record of Nescol Limited

(placed before us through CMA No.859 of 2017) shows that

LZ Nominees were reappointed as Nominee Director on

15.5.2004 and resigned as such on 26.01.2006. We cannot

help but notice that the date of appointment i.e. 13.05.2004

is exactly the same as it appears in the Board Resolution

said to be signed by Mrs. Maryam Safdar and denied by her.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 513
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Further, we have found no reason either for the petitioner or

for any other party to forge a document of this nature. Even

otherwise, the resolution was published by a German

Newspaper which appears to have dug it out from the cache

of documents that constituted part of the Panama Leaks.

49. It appears that in the background of events of

9/11 and the consequent international efforts to curb money

laundering, holding assets through offshore companies by

masking identity of real owners and tracing illegal money

etc, the law relating to offshore companies in BVI namely

International Business Companies Act, 1984 was reenacted

in 2006. The earlier law provided for issuance of bearer

certificates without disclosing the name of the holder which

could be issued under Section 28 of the Act without

requiring any registration and could be transferred by

delivery under Section 31 thereof. In other words a person

could hold a share in an offshore company which owned

immovable property in UK without disclosing his identity.

The reenacted law however provided for registration of the

bearer certificates with disclosure of identity of holder of the

bearer certificates. The deadline in the reenacted law for

registration of such bearer certificates was 31.12.2009.

50. Respondent No.7 claims that pursuant to the

aforesaid requirements, the bearer certificates of Nescol

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 514
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Limited and Nielsen Enterprises were surrendered with the

said companies and bearer certificates were

issued/registered in the names of two management

companies namely Minerva Holdings and Minerva Services.

This arrangement continued till 2014 when the shares

issued in favour of Minerva Holding and Minerva Services

were cancelled and fresh shares were issued in favour of

Trustee Services Corporation. Thereafter, it appears that

Arrina Limited was appointed to provide management

services for the Mayfair Properties and liaise with service

providers of Nescol Limited and Nielsen Enterprises Limited.

Respondent No.7 has attempted to show that he was in

effective control of and instructing the management

companies as well as service companies. He has thus tried

to establish that the beneficial owner of the Mayfair

Properties is and always was Respondent No.7 and that

Respondent No.6 had no direct or indirect right, title or

interest of any nature in the Mayfair Properties other than in

her capacity as a Trustee (authorized signatory, etc) for and

on behalf of Respondent No.7. However, not a single

document showing real ownership of Nescol Limited, Nelson

Enterprises Limited, Minerva Holdings, Minerva Services,

Trustee Services Corporation, etc or control of Respondent

No.7 over the said entities has been produced. The real

ownership and control of the companies/properties and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 515
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

more importantly the sources of funds used to acquire these

properties remains shrouded in mystery. Another material

factor that has to be kept in mind is that admittedly the

Mayfair Properties were in possession/occupation of the

family of Respondent No.1 since 1993/1996 when these are

alleged (without proof) to have been acquired by the Thani

Family through Nescol Limited and Nielson Enterprises

Limited. At that time neither Respondent No.7 nor

Respondent No.8 had any sources to purchase/acquire these

assets. Respondent No.1 was at the relevant time

(1993/1996) and still is holder of a public office. His children

have since then been in possession of the Mayfair

Properties, when they were admittedly dependents of

Respondent No.1 and had no sources of income. The value

of the Mayfair Properties was ostensibly disproportionate to

the declared and known sources of income of Respondent

No.1 (if his income tax returns are kept in mind). In his

concise statement as well as his two speeches, Respondent

No.1 has totally denied his connection with these assets.

This prima facie amounts to failure to account for these

assets. The matter clearly attracts the provisions of Section

9(a)(v) read with Section 14(c) of NAO authorizing NAB to

proceed against Respondent No.1 and any other person

connected with him in this regard. We cannot help but

conclude that this matter has intentionally and deliberately

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 516
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been kept vague, undocumented and unexplained to hide

and conceal the real facts, which if disclosed would be

damaging for the case of Respondents No.1, 6, 7 & 8.

51. Having examined the transactions leading to

acquisition of the Mayfair Properties and having made

earnest, and at times, highly frustrating and fruitless efforts

to find a verifiable trail of transactions showing legitimate

funds being transmitted through legitimate sources and

verifiable banking channels for acquisition of the Mayfair

Properties, we have been left in a lurch. This was despite tall

and unequivocal claims on the part of Respondents No.1, 6,

7, other members of the Sharif Family and their political

spokespersons who took to every available television

channel and availed every possible opportunity to assert

and claim that all relevant documents/evidence showing

legitimate sources, money trails and banking transactions

were available, in possession of the Respondents and will be

produced before the legal fora. Regrettably, there has been

complete utter and total failure to do so. It was repeatedly

promised that all record will be produced before the

concerned fora in order to show that there was no

wrongdoing and the acquisition of the properties was

through legitimate sources which were transparent and

above board. On the contrary, we note with regret and

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 517
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

disappointment that every possible effort was made and

every conceivable device was adopted to withhold and

conceal information and documents which were necessary

to answer the numerous questions which have been raised

regarding probity, transparency and legitimacy of the

transactions in question by the highest Court of the country.

We have valid reasons and lawful justification to believe and

hold that most of the material questions have either not

been answered or where any answers have been

attempted, the same have been found by us to be most

unsatisfactory, farfetched and unbelievable. It has candidly

been admitted by the learned counsel for Respondents No.7

& 8 that there are holes and gaps in the stance adopted by

the Respondents which have neither been filled nor

explained by supplying acceptable explanations, evidence

and documentation. There is a host of material, crucial and

critical questions which have remained unaddressed,

unresolved and unanswered. It has been argued that the

explanation offered by Respondents No.7 & 8 meets the

threshold of realm of possibilities, and this is what the

Respondents were required to do. We are unfortunately

unable to agree with the said argument in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. We may observe that

the contradictory, discrepant and divergent explanations

offered to us by the Respondents, including Respondent

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 518
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

No.1 have been found by us to be absurd, fanciful and

ludicrous. Owing to the missing pieces and gaps we have

found it impossible to make any reasonable sense out of a

convoluted, contradictory and deliberately jumbled up set of

facts to come to a conclusion on a number of matters

including the fact that the Mayfair Properties were

purchased/acquired with legitimate funds and verifiable

sources.

52. The most material question that arises from the

above discussion is whether the findings recorded above are

enough for us to declare that Respondent No.1 is not

truthful and ameen and then proceed to disqualify him from

being a member of the National Assembly. In order to

answer these questions, it would have to be seen if there is

any provision of the Constitution which may require a

Parliamentarian to disclose assets of his adult and

independent children and the sources of funds with which

such assets were acquired and in the event of such non-

disclosure or inability to explain the sources, empowers this

Court to disqualify such Parliamentarian, in exercise of

powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Articles 62

& 63 of the Constitution deal with the issue of qualification

and disqualification of the Parliamentarians. Interpretation

of the said constitutional provisions, being pivotal to the

question in issue, the said Articles are reproduced below, for

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 519
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

ease of reference:-

62(1). A person shall not be qualified to be elected

or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament) unless

(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;

(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not

less than twenty-five years of age and is
enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in

(i) any part of Pakistan, for election to a

general seat or a seat reserved for non-
Muslim; and

(ii) any area in a Province from which she

seeks membership for election to a seat
reserved for women.

(c) he is, in the case of Senate, not less than thirty

years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any
area in a Province or, as the case may be, the
Federal Capital or the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, from where he seeks
membership;

(d) he is of good character and is not commonly

known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;

(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic

teachings and practices obligatory duties
prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from
major sins;

(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate,

honest and ameen, there being no declaration
to the contrary by a court of law; and

(g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan,

worked against the integrity of the country or
opposed the ideology of Pakistan.

(2) The disqualifications specified in paragraphs

(d) and (e) shall not apply to a person who is a non-
Muslim, but such a person shall have good moral
reputation.

63 (1). A person shall be disqualified from being

elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of
the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if

(a) he is of unsound mind and has been so

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 520
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

declared by a competent court; or

(b) he is an undischarged insolvent; or

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or

acquires the citizenship of a foreign State; or

(d) he holds an office of profit in the service of

Pakistan other than an office declared by law
not to disqualify its holder; or

(e) he is in the service of any statutory body or

any body which is owned or controlled by the
Government or in which the Government has a
controlling share or interest; or

(f) being a citizen of Pakistan by virtue of section

14B of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 (II of
1951), he is for the time being disqualified
under any law in force in Azad Jammu and
Kashmir from being elected as a member of
the Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and
Kashmir; or

(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 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; or

(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; or

(i) he has been dismissed from the service of

Pakistan or service of a corporation or office
set up or, controlled by the Federal
Government, Provincial Government or a Local
Government on the grounds of misconduct,
unless a period of five years has elapsed since
his dismissal; or

(j) he has been removed or compulsorily retired

from the service of Pakistan or service of a
corporation or office set up or controlled by the
Federal Government, Provincial Government or
a Local Government on the grounds of
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 521
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

misconduct, unless a period of three years has

elapsed since his removal or compulsory
retirement; or

(k) he has been in the service of Pakistan or of any

statutory body or any body which is owned or
controlled by the Government or in which the
Government has a controlling share or interest,
unless a period of two years has elapsed since
he ceased to be in such service; or

(l) he, whether by himself or by any person or

body of persons in trust for him or for his
benefit or on his account or as a member of a
Hindu undivided family, has any share or
interest in a contract, not being a contract
between a cooperative society and
Government, for the supply of goods to, or for
the execution of any contract or for the
performance of any service undertaken by,
Government:

Provided that the disqualification under

this paragraph shall not apply to a person

(i) where the share or interest in the

contract devolves on him by inheritance
or succession or as a legatee, executor
or administrator, until the expiration of
six months after it has so devolved on
him;

(ii) Where the contract has been entered

into by or on behalf of a public company
as defined in the Companies Ordinance,
1984 (XLVII of 1984), of which he is a
shareholder but is not a director holding
an office of profit under the company; or

(iii) Where he is a member of a Hindu

undivided family and the contract has
been entered into by any other member
of that family in the course of carrying on
a separate business in which he has no
share or interest; or

Explanation.In this Article

goods does not include agricultural
produce or commodity grown or
produced by him or such goods as he is,
under any directive of Government or
any law for the time being in force, under
a duty or obligation to supply; or
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 522
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(m) he holds any office of profit in the service of

Pakistan other than the following offices,
namely:-

(i) an office which is not whole time office

remunerated either by salary or by fee;

(ii) the office of Lumbardar, whether called

by this or any other title;

(iii) the Qaumi Razakars,

(iv) any office the holder whereof, by virtue

of such office, is liable to be called up for
military training or military service under
any law providing for the constitution or
raising of a Force; or

(n) he has obtained a loan for an amount of two

million rupees or more, from any bank,
financial institution, cooperative society or
cooperative body in his own name or in the
name of his spouse or any of his dependents,
which remains unpaid for more than one year
from the due date, or has got such loan written
off; or

(o) he or his spouse or any of his dependents has

defaulted in payment of government dues and
utility expenses, including telephone,
electricity, gas and water charges in excess of
ten thousand rupees, for over six months, at
the time of filing his nomination papers; or

(p) he is for the time being disqualified from being

elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly
under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation.For the purposes of this

paragraph law shall not include an Ordinance
promulgated under Article 89 or Article 128.

(2) If any question arises whether a member of the

Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified
from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case
may be, the Chairman shall, unless he decides that
no such question has arisen, refer the question to
the Election Commission within thirty days and if he
fails to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be
deemed to have been referred to the Election
Commission.

(3) The Election Commission shall decide the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 523
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

question within ninety days from its receipt or

deemed to have been received and if it is of the
opinion that the member has become disqualified,
he shall cease to be a member and his seat shall
become vacant.

53. Perusal of the afore-noted constitutional

provisions would reveal that the said Articles of the

Constitution do not impose an obligation on a

Parliamentarian to disclose his own assets or those of his

spouse, dependent or independent children. Likewise, there

is no corresponding provision in the Constitution providing a

penal consequence for non-disclosure of such assets or

failure to explain the source(s) of funds with which such

assets may have been acquired. In the absence of any

constitutional requirement, the same cannot be read into

the language of Articles 62 or 63 of the Constitution. For the

said purpose, one has to look towards other laws which

create such obligations, violation whereof attracts the

provisions of Articles 62 and /or 63 of the Constitution.

54. One such law relating to the conduct of elections

to the National and the Provincial Assemblies is the

Representation of People Act, 1976 (RoPA). It provides for

the conduct of elections and to guard against corrupt and

illegal practices and other offences at or in connection with

such elections. Article 218 of the Constitution provides for

establishment of an Election Commission to organize and

conduct elections and to make such arrangements as may

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 524
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

be necessary to ensure that the election is conducted

honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law and that

corrupt practices are guarded against.

55. Section 12 of RoPA deals inter alia with

nomination papers, sub-section (f) thereof requires a

candidate to file with his nomination papers, on solemn

affirmation, a statement of his assets and liabilities and

those of his spouse and dependents on the prescribed form

as on the preceding thirtieth day of June. Section 107 of the

RoPA empowers the Election Commission of Pakistan to

make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In

exercise of such powers, the Representation of People

(Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 (the Rules) have been

promulgated. In terms of Rule 3 thereof, Nomination Forms

have been prescribed. The standard Nomination Form, in

addition to other particulars of the candidate, requires him

to make and sign a number of declarations. The declaration

relating to assets and liabilities reads as under:-

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

I, . A candidate for election to general seat from

constituency No hereby declare on solemn affirmation that no
immovable and movable property, including bonds, shares,
certificates, securities, insurance policies and jewellery, other than
specified herein below, is held by me, my spouse(s) and dependents
on the 30th day of June, ..

ASSETS

Cost of Present value Remarks

Assets of property
1. IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Open plots, houses,

apartments, commercial buildings,
under construction properties,
agricultural property, etc.

(a) Held within Pakistan

(i) ____________
(ii) ____________
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 525
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(iii) ____________

(b) Held outside Pakistan

(i) ____________
(ii) ____________

2. MOVABLE ASSETS

(a) Business capital within

Pakistan

Name of business
Capital amount
(b) Business capital outside
Pakistan
Name of business
Capital amount
(c) Assets brought or remitted
form outside Pakistan*
(i) Bank drafts/Remittances
(ii) Machinery
(iii) Other

(d) Assets created out of

remittances from abroad*
(e) Investments
(i) Stock and Shares
(ii) Debentures
(iii) National Investment (Unit)
Trust
(iv) ICP Certificates
(v) National Savings Schemes
- Defence Savings Certificate
- Special Savings Certificate
- Regular Income Certificate
(vi) Unsecured loans
(vii) Mortgages
(viii) Any other

(f) Motor Vehicles **

Make Model Reg. No.
(i) ____ ____ ____
(ii) ____ ____ ____
(g) Jewellery, etc
Weight _______
Description______
(h) Cash and Bank Accounts*
(i) Cash in hand
(ii) Cash at Bank

Account No. Bank & Branch

Current __ _____
Deposit __ _____
Savings __ _____
Other Deposits __ _____
(i) Furniture, Fittings & articles of
personal use
(j) Assets transferred to any
person---
(i) Without adequate
consideration, or
(ii) By revocable
transfer
(k) Any other assets

LIABILITIES

Amount Remarks

(i) Mortgages Secured On Property Or Land

(ii) Unsecured Loans Owing
(iii) Bank Overdraft
(iv) Bank Loans
(v) Amounts Due Under Hire Purchase Agreement
(vi) House Building Loans
(vii) Advances from Provident Funds etc
(viii) Other debts due
(ix) Liabilities in the names of minor children (in respect of
assets standing in their names)

Total

VERIFICATION

I, S/o, W/o, D/o . Do hereby solemnly

declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above
statement of assets and liabilities of myself, my spouse(s), dependents
as on 30th June, .. is correct and complete and nothing has been
concealed therefrom.

Dated. Signature of
Candidate
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 526
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

56. The said declaration is also required to be

verified under Oath. Section 42-A of the RoPA also requires

every member to submit a statement of assets and

liabilities of his own, his spouse and dependents annually to

the Commission by the thirteenth day of September each

year. Rule 28-A of the Rules requires such statement to be

submitted in Form XXI, the format whereof is provided

therein. In terms of Section 42-A(4) of the RoPA if a member

submits the statement of assets and liabilities which is

found to be false in material particulars, he may be

proceeded against under Section 82 of the RoPA for

committing an offence of corrupt practice. If found guilty by

a Sessions Judge under Section 94 of the RoPA, such

member is punishable with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to

Five Thousand Rupees or with both. In case, it is established

in a Court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction that a

candidate has concealed any of the assets required to be

disclosed under the statement of assets and liabilities in his

Nomination Papers or his Annual Statement of Assets and

Liabilities, the same may constitute basis for his

disqualification inter alia under the provisions of Articles 62

and/or 63 of the Constitution.

57. However, it needs to be emphasized that where

such declaration is properly made there is neither any

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 527
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

requirement nor power vesting in the hierarchy provided

under the Election Laws to require the candidate to explain

the source of funds used to acquire such assets. Does this

mean that a candidate or holder of a public office, who

acquires assets through unlawful means goes scot-free as

long as he declares the same in his Nomination Papers? The

answer is obviously in the negative. However, the

mechanism provided by the law in order to make such a

person answerable and accountable for disclosure of

sources for acquisition of assets is incorporated in the NAO

under which a person, holding assets directly or indirectly,

which are disproportionate to his known sources of income

can be called upon to explain and disclose the sources with

which such assets were acquired and on his failure to do so

to the satisfaction of the Court, he can be visited with penal

consequences provided in the said law. A conviction under

NAO or any other law for the time being in force can also

trigger the disqualification mechanism provided in the

Constitution. Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 14(c) and

Section 15 of the NAO provide as follows:-

9(a)(v). if he or any of his dependents or

benamidars owns, possesses, or has
http://www.nab.gov.pk/Downloads/nao.asp - 12-4[acquired]
right or title in any [assets or holds irrevocable
power of attorney in respect of any assets] or
pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known
sources of income, which he cannot [reasonably]
account for; [or maintains a standard of living
beyond that which is commensurate with his sources
of income]
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 528
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

14(c) In any trial of an offence punishable under

clause (iv) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of this
Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any
other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which
the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of
[assets] or pecuniary resources disproportionate to
his known sources of income, or that such person
has, at or about the time of the commission of the
offence with which he is charged, obtained an
accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for
which he cannot satisfactorily account, the Court
shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that
the accused person is guilty of the offence of
corruption and corrupt practices and his conviction
therefore shall not be invalid by reason only that it is
based solely on such a presumption.

15. Disqualification to contest elections [or to hold to

public office]. (a) Where an accused person is
convicted [of an offence under section 9 of this
Ordinance], he shall forthwith cease to hold public
office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand
disqualified for a period of ten years, to be reckoned
from the date he is released after serving the
sentence, for seeking or from being elected, chosen,
appointed or nominated as a member or
representative of any public body or any statutory or
local authority or in service of Pakistan or of any
Province:

Provided that any accused person who has

availed the benefit of [sub-section (b) of section 25]
shall also be deemed to have been convicted for an
offence under this Ordinance, and shall forthwith
cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and
further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten
years, to be reckoned from the date he has
discharged his liabilities relating to the matter or
transaction in issue, for seeking or from being
elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a
member or representative of any public body or any
statutory or local authority or in service of Pakistan
or of any Province.

(b) Any person convicted of an offence [under

section 9 of this Ordinance] shall not be allowed to
apply for or be granted or allowed any financial
facilities in the form of any loan or advances [or
other financial accommodation by] any bank or
financial institution [owned or controlled by the
Government] for a period of 10 years from the date
of conviction.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 529
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

58. Where there is an allegation that a holder of

public office or any of his dependents or benamidars owns

or possesses any assets or pecuniary resources which are

disproportionate to his known sources of income which he

cannot reasonably account for he can be convicted of an

offence of corruption and corrupt practices and upon such

conviction, penal consequences would follow. However,

such conviction can only be recorded by an Accountability

Court under the NAO, after a proper trial, recording

evidence and granting due process rights guaranteed by the

Constitution to the accused. To transplant the powers of the

Accountability Court and to attach such powers to the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution has neither been prayed for by the petitioners

nor can it be, in our opinion, done without stretching the

letter of the law and the scheme of the Constitution.

Further, such course of action would be violative of the

principles enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution,

which guarantee to every citizen the right to be dealt with

in accordance with law, equality before law and entitlement

to equal protection of law. Adopting any other mode would

set a bad precedent and amount to a constitutional Court

following an unconstitutional course. This, we are not willing

to do, in the interest of upholding the rule of law and our

unflinching and firm belief in adherence and fidelity to the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 530
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

letter and spirit of the Constitution.

59. Perusal of Article 62 (1) of the Constitution would

indicate that, prima facie it relates to pre-election

qualification as is evident from the words, a person shall

not be qualified to be elected .. The provisions of Article

62 of the Constitution which have also been replicated in

Section 99 of the RoPA are initially enforceable through the

hierarchy established under the RoPA starting from the

Returning Officer and culminating in the Election

Tribunal/Election Commission in terms of Articles 218 & 225

of the Constitution. For instance, if it is established before

the Returning Officer, Election Tribunal or the Election

Commission that a Court of law has issued a declaration

that a candidate is not sagacious, righteous, non-profligate,

honest and ameen, any of the fora provided in the RoPA

(depending on the time, the stage and the proceedings in

which such information is placed before the concerned

forum) can hold that he is not qualified to contest the

election. It must also be kept in mind that various provisions

of RoPA prescribe a period of limitation for filing objections

to the candidature of an intending candidate or to challenge

his election after notification of the result is published in the

official gazette. The question that arises is what remedy is

provided under the law and the Constitution if certain facts

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 531
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

or circumstances as enumerated in Articles 62 or 63 of the

Constitution are discovered after a person has been elected

and the stage or the period of limitation to challenge his

election on any of the grounds provided in the said Articles

before the competent fora provided in RoPA has

passed/expired. Does this mean that a person once elected

cannot be disqualified on the said grounds by any mode or

manner despite the fact that he suffers from any of the

disqualifications mentioned in Articles 62 and/or 63 or any

provision of RoPA? The answer is obviously in the negative.

Where there is a wrong there is a remedy. The Constitution

and the law clearly cater for situations like these.

60. It may be noticed that Article 63 of the

Constitution inter alia deals with the issue of post-election

disqualification and also provides a forum for the same.

Therefore, if a question is raised by a member as to whether

or not another member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

has become disqualified from being a member on any

ground available under the Constitution or any law for the

time being in force including RoPA, the Speaker or the

Chairman, as the case may be, is obliged to examine the

material placed before him and if he comes to the

conclusion that such question has arisen, he is required to

refer the same to the Election Commission within 30 days. If

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 532
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

he fails to do so within the said period such question is

deemed to have been referred to the Election Commission.

61. Before referring the matter to the Election

Commission, the Speaker / Chairman has 30 days to decide

whether or not such question has arisen and if he decides

that no such question has arisen he has the power to refuse

to refer the question to the Election Commission for

decision. However, the decision of the Speaker has to be

made on the basis of lawful, valid and cogent reasons

showing due application of mind to the facts, circumstances

and material placed before the Speaker/Chairman, as the

case may be. Such decision is justiciable before Courts of

competent jurisdiction. If a Court of competent jurisdiction

on being approached by any of the parties finds that the

decision of the Speaker/Chairman is legally or factually

incorrect it can set aside such decision, and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with the law and the

Constitution to refer the matter to the Election Commission

of Pakistan.

62. On receipt of such question, the Election

Commission has the power to decide the same within 90

days and if it is of the opinion that the member has become

disqualified, such member ceases to be a member and his

seat becomes vacant. In these proceedings, the Election

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 533
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Commission of Pakistan has the power to issue such

directions or orders as may be necessary for the

performance of its functions and duties, including any order

for doing complete justice and an order for the purpose of

securing attendance of any person or the discovery and

production of any document. Any of the parties aggrieved of

a decision of the Election Commission can approach a Court

of competent jurisdiction to challenge such order.

63. Another constitutional remedy in situations of

this nature is available under Article 199 of the Constitution

before the High Court and in appropriate cases before this

Court in terms of Article 184(3) of the Constitution. As noted

above jurisprudence in this regard has developed in the

past few years. However, in an earlier case reported as

Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 98),

Justice Hamoodur Rahman, CJ writing for the Court laid out

the contours of exercise of jurisdiction of this Court. He

repelled the contention that a writ of quo warranto could

not be issued in an election dispute by holding as follows:-

I regret my inability to accept this contention for

more than one reason. Firstly, because this would be
allowing a person to continue to remain a member of
an Assembly even though Article 103 of the
Constitution says that he cannot. Secondly, because,
the dispute raised after an election is not, a dispute
relating to or arising in connection with an election
but a dispute regarding the right of the person
concerned from being a Member of an Assembly. An
election dispute is a dispute raised by a voter or a
defeated candidate in his individual capacity under
the Statute. It determines the private rights of two
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 534
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

persons to the same office but a proceeding for an

information in the nature of quo warranto is invoked
in the public interest. The latter seeks to determine
the title to the office and not the validity of the
election. These are two distinct and independent
remedies for enforcing independent rights, and the
mere fact the disqualification has been overlooked or
what is worse, illegally condoned by the authorities
who were responsible for properly scrutinizing a
persons right to be enrolled as a voter or his right to
be validly nominated for election would not prevent
a person from challenging in the public interest his
right to sit in the house even after his election if that
disqualification is still continuing. Indeed a writ of
quo warranto or a proceeding in the nature of an
information for a quo warranto, unless expressly
barred by some statute, is available precisely for
such a purpose

64. The principles laid down in the said judgment

were subsequently followed in a number of cases including

Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012

SC 1089). However, this power can be exercised only when

there are admitted facts and/or irrefutable direct evidence

available on record to justify disqualification. In the instant

case, admitted facts or direct and irrefutable evidence is not

presently available on record to justify and support a

declaration of disqualification. However, sufficient material

is available to raise valid suspicions which furnish legitimate

basis to order probe and investigation to ascertain the true

facts and collect evidence. If such facts/evidence are/is

placed before this Court, appropriate orders including orders

for disqualification can be passed in exercise of powers

under Article 184(3) read with Article 187 of the

Constitution.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 535
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

65. We have been informed that a number of

Members of the National Assembly belonging to the political

party of the petitioner as well as Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, one

of the petitioners before us, had filed Petitions before the

Speaker, National Assembly under Article 63(2) of the

Constitution seeking disqualification of Respondent No.1.

However, vide an identical order dated 2nd September,

2016, the Speaker refused to refer the Petitions to the

Election Commission holding that in his opinion no question

had arisen regarding disqualification of Respondent No.1 as

a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). The afore-

noted order passed by the Speaker of the National

Assembly has been challenged before the Lahore High

Court, by way of a constitutional petition which is pending.

We would, therefore, not like to comment on the order of

the Speaker lest such comment should prejudice the case of

either party. The High Court shall therefore proceed with the

matter(s) before it and decide the same in accordance with

law. Article 63(2) of the Constitution provides one of the

remedies to cater for a situation where a validly elected

member becomes disqualified during the tenure of his

membership on the basis of any of the grounds mentioned

in Articles 62 and/or 63(1) of the Constitution. That is to say

the ground of disqualification occurs after he has validly

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 536
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

been elected and was not in existence (whether known to

anybody or not) at the time when he filed his nomination

papers and was elected. In such a situation, any other

member can approach the Speaker/Chairman seeking

disqualification of the member who has incurred the alleged

disqualification whereupon the Speaker/Chairman and the

Election Commission can exercise powers provided in Article

63(2) and (3) of the Constitution, respectively. This means

that where the ground for seeking disqualification is that a

member did not qualify at the time of filing his nomination

papers, but this fact (ground seeking disqualification) was

discovered subsequently (which is the case of the

petitioners), the matter cannot be referred to the Election

Commission of Pakistan. In order for the Election

Commission to disqualify a member on a reference sent by

the Speaker, it must be shown that the disqualifying fact or

event occurred after a member had validly been elected,

which (ground) was nonexistent at the time of filing of

nomination papers. The words if any question arises,

whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has

become disqualified from being a member . supports this

interpretation. This view is fortified by the law laid down by

this Court in Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of

Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 774).

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 537
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

66. As noted above, the power to disqualify a

member in cases where for some reason he escaped

disqualification at the time of filing his/her nomination

papers, but such fact/event was discovered subsequently

(as is the case set up by the petitioners) can, in appropriate

cases and subject to availability of admitted facts or

irrefutable evidence be exercised by the High Court under

Article 199 and by this Court under Article 184(3) of the

Constitution on the principles laid down in Farzand Alis case

ibid, which has been followed by this Court in a number of

recent judgements, including Mehmood Akhtar Naqvis case

ibid. This power can also be exercised where facts can be

determined if the exercise does not require voluminous

evidence and intricate and disputed questions of fact are

not involved. The instant case, however, does not presently

meet the said criteria.

67. We have already dealt with the ground urged by

the Petitioners seeking disqualification of Respondent No.1

by issuing a declaration that he is not honest within the

meaning of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in the earlier

part of the judgment.

68. We now proceed to take up other grounds urged

by the Petitioners in their petitions seeking disqualification

of Respondents No.1, 9 & 10. It has been alleged by the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 538
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Petitioners that Respondent No.1 did not declare the Mayfair

Properties in the declaration filed with his nomination

papers. The Respondents maintain that the beneficial owner

of the said properties is Mrs. Maryam Safdar, who is a

dependent of Respondent No.1. As such, he was required to

disclose the said assets in his nomination papers. Such

failure on his part shows that he is not truthful within the

contemplation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and is

therefore, liable to be declared as such, leading to his

disqualification from being a member of the National

Assembly. The defence of Respondent No.1 is that he

neither owns the offshore companies (Nescol Limited and

Nelson Enterprises Limited) nor the Mayfair Properties.

However, in our view a mere denial is not enough for the

reason that admittedly Respondents No.6 to 8 were minors

when the Steel Mill at Dubai was established, Respondent

No.1 being the oldest son of Mian Muhammad Sharif was

with him in the said business (as is evident from the

photographs produced by him) and the family was together

when Ittefaq Foundry was returned and a number of other

Units were set up. It is hard to believe that he had no

information regarding the mode and manner in which the

shares in Gulf Steel were sold in two different transactions

and the funds generated through the said sales were used.

We are also unable to believe that if at all an investment

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 539
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

was made in Qatar, Respondent No.1 was totally unaware of

it till the time that he addressed the Nation in 2016 and

even after that till the time that he filed his concise

statement before this Court, on none of which occasions did

he mention investments in Qatar and the Mayfair Properties

being given to Respondent No.7 by way of a settlement

through transfer of bearer certificates. Further, the stance of

different members of the Sharif Family including

Respondents No.1 and 7 for many years has been that the

Mayfair Properties were purchased. However, their

accounts differ quite materially on the mode of acquisition,

source of funds and timing of acquisition. The position was

bad enough, as it was when letters allegedly written by

Sheikh Hamad were introduced to add a new dimension to

the already confused state of affairs to complicate it further.

This was obviously an afterthought. Therefore, if the story of

the Qatar investment and settlement was to be disbelieved

(which at this stage and on the basis of material before us,

we have no reason to believe), many questions have arisen

on the basis of the admitted position that the Mayfair

Properties have been in possession and occupation of the

sons of Respondent No.1 since 1993/1995 when admittedly

Respondents No.7 & 8 were dependents and had no

independent sources of income. These questions include

questions like who is the real owner of the Mayfair

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 540
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Properties, whether Respondent No.1 has legal or beneficial

title or ownership of the said properties, whether he is

holding these properties through Benamidars, whether the

properties were acquired through legitimate sources etc,

whether by his failure to declare his ownership in his

Nomination Papers/Tax Returns/Wealth Statements etc he

has concealed his property and is therefore liable to be

visited with the penal consequences of Articles 62 & 63 read

with Section 99 of the RoPA. Further, Respondent No.1 is a

holder of public office and his children have been in

possession of the Mayfair Properties since 1993/1996 which

were disproportionate to the known sources of income of

Respondent No.1 and his children. Therefore, the provisions

of Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 14(c) of the NAO may

be attracted. However, it is clear and obvious that answers

to these questions cannot be found without a thorough

probe and investigation. On the basis of the outcome of

such exercise, we would be in a better position to decide if

there is sufficient material available before us to exercise

jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to

disqualify Respondent No.1 and/or refer the matter to an

Accountability Court established under the NAO.

69. As far as recording a finding that Respondent

No.1 is hit by the provisions of the Article 62(1)(f) of the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 541
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

Constitution because he did not declare an asset (Mayfair

Properties) beneficially owned by his dependent daughter

(Maryam Safdar) in his nomination papers is concerned,

there are two stumbling blocks in our way to grant such

declaration. In the first place, we are not convinced at this

stage and on the basis of material before us to hold

conclusively that Respondent No.6 was a dependent of

Respondent No.1. In addition, and notwithstanding the fact

whether or not Respondent No.6 was a dependent of

Respondent No.1, it cannot at this stage, on the basis of

material before us conclusively be held that Respondent

No.6 is the beneficial owner of the Mayfair Properties. Both

these facts need to be established before Article 62(1)(f) of

the Constitution gets attracted in this case. As a necessary

corollary, it is not possible for us to hold, at this stage on

available record, that Respondent No.1 has failed to disclose

an asset owned by his dependent daughter in the

declaration given in his Nomination Papers, and return a

finding that he is not honest in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of

the Constitution.

70. Another aspect of the case set up by the

petitioner against Respondent No.1 with reference to his

disqualification is that he had declared Respondent No.6 as

his dependent in his wealth statement for the tax year

2011. It has been submitted that despite such admitted

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 542
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

dependency, Respondent No.6 was not shown as a

dependent and the Mayfair Properties and other assets

owned/held by her were not declared in the nomination

papers submitted by Respondent No.1 for his election for a

seat in the National Assembly in 2013.

71. The basic question that arises from the

assertions made on behalf of the petitioners is whether

Respondent No.6 was a dependent of Respondent No.1 in

2011. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has argued

that mere mention of Respondent No.6 in the tax returns of

Respondent No.1 in the column provided for dependents is

not enough to make her a dependent of Respondent No.1 in

the legal sense. He has elaborated by pointing out that

agricultural property owned by Respondent No.1 was held in

the name of Respondent No.6 and was so disclosed in the

Wealth Tax Returns. This disclosure perforce had to be made

in the column for dependents owing to lack of space in the

computerized form for disclosure of properties held by the

filer in the name of any other person. He further points out

that it was clearly stated that the property was, held in the

name of Respondent No.6 which shows that the property

was owned by Respondent No.1 for all intents and purposes

but was bona fide declared to be held in the name of

Respondent No.6. The property in question was

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 543
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

subsequently purchased by Respondent No.6 from

Respondent No.1 through validly registered sale deeds and

payment of consideration. This fact is established by the

documents showing transfer of approximately Rs.254

million from the accounts of Respondent No.6 to the

account of Respondent No.1 through banking channels

which shows that she paid the price of the agricultural land

in question to Respondent No.1 and became the real owner

of the property in question. She declared the said property

as her own in her Tax Returns. The consideration received

by Respondent No.1 was also shown in his Tax Returns. In

the subsequent Wealth Tax Statements, filed by Respondent

No.1, the said property was therefore not declared by

Respondent No.1 as his property in his returns/declarations

filed after 2012. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1

has further drawn our attention to a notification dated

26.08.2015 issued by the FBR creating another column in

the Wealth Tax Return to provide space for disclosure of

properties held by the filer in the names of others. This

according to the learned counsel shows that the deficiency

in the earlier form was noticed by the FBR which

necessitated the issuance of the notification in question by

way of rectification of the omission/deficiency in the Form.

We have considered the argument of the learned counsel

for Respondent No.6 and find it plausible. In our opinion, it

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 544
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

explains the transaction in question adequately and the

same is also verifiable from the record. Further, the

transaction has not been questioned by the Income Tax

Authorities either before us or even in exercise of their own

powers under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

72. We also find that although Respondent No.6 has

received cash gifts from her father in substantial amounts

on various occasions, the same have been declared where

such declaration was required. Even otherwise, receipt of

gifts from the father does not necessarily make Respondent

No.6 his dependent in the legal sense of the world. We also

notice that Respondent No.6 owns substantial agricultural

property, receives income from the same, holds shares in

limited companies worth more than Rs.200 million and her

husband also receives a fair amount of money by way of

pension as a retired military officer. He also receives salary /

allowances in his capacity as a member of the National

Assembly. The mere fact that she has chosen to live in a

compound owned by her grandmother does not ipso facto

make her a dependent of Respondent No.1 either. She has

asserted and such assertion has not been challenged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that she contributes a

substantial sum of money towards her share in the joint

expenses incurred by her grandmother on behalf of other

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 545
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

members of the Sharif Family residing in the compound. In

this context, whether or not Respondent No.6 is the

beneficial owner of the Mayfair Properties becomes

irrelevant at this stage, seen from the point of view of

seeking disqualification of Respondent No.1 on the ground

that he has failed to disclose the assets of a dependent.

Even otherwise, the issue of dependency is a question of

fact to be determined on case to case basis after recording

evidence. We are not persuaded to undertake the said

exercise, for this purpose, while exercising jurisdiction under

Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

73. Having come to the conclusion that in these

proceedings sufficient material is not available on the record

to establish that Respondent No.6 is a dependent of

Respondent No.1, in a legal sense, we do not feel the

necessity to discuss this aspect of the case any further, lest

it should prejudice the case of either party before a

competent forum if and when this issue is agitated.

74. It has strenuously been argued by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No.1 and other

members of his family have been involved in tax evasion.

By way of illustration, it has been pointed out that in the

wealth reconciliation statements for the tax year 2011,

Respondent No.1 has disclosed receipt of a sum of US$

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 546
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

1,914,054 which translates into about 20 Crore Pak Rupees.

In subsequent years, similar amounts were received by

Respondent No.1 as gifts. These amounts were allegedly

sent by Respondent No.7 to Respondent No.1 by way of

gifts. It is argued that the amounts received by Respondent

No.1 did not qualify as gifts. These were to be treated as

income in the hands of Respondent No.1 through other

sources on which tax was required to be paid by him. It was

also pointed out that despite tall claims made by

Respondent No.1 regarding payment of huge amounts of

money as tax by the industrial establishments of his family,

his personal tax payments between 1981 to 1999 were not

more than a few thousand rupees.

75. It is therefore argued that the tax payment

history of Respondent No.1 clearly points towards tax

evasion on his part for years on end. On considering the

arguments of both sides on the issue, we find that the

Returns filed by Respondent No.1 from time to time were

accepted by the Tax Department. The Returns were neither

challenged nor reopened in exercise of powers available to

the concerned functionaries of the tax department and may

have become past and closed transactions owing to afflux

of time considering the period of limitation provided by the

Tax laws. Representatives of the Federal Board of Revenue

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 547
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

(FBR) and their counsel categorically stated before us that

no definitive information was placed before the competent

authorities either by the petitioners or any other person that

may have furnished basis for reopening and scrutiny of the

Returns of Respondent No.1. It was therefore stated that

there was no valid reason or lawful basis available to the tax

department to reopen the returns of Respondent No.1 for

past years.

76. Further, even if for the sake of argument, the

allegations of tax evasion were to be given any credence,

the same would not automatically attract the penal

consequences of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution. This is

in view of the fact that the said Article is attracted only

where liability has finally been determined by the

competent forum and default has been committed in

payment of such determined liability. In the present case,

the said prerequisites are missing. As a result, on a mere

allegation of tax evasion, it cannot be held that provisions of

Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution are attracted and

Respondent No.1 is liable to be disqualified on that score

from being a member of the Parliament.

77. As far as the question of default in payment of

tax on the afore-noted gifts is concerned, the learned

counsel for Respondent No.1 has drawn our attention to the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 548
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

exemption provided under Section 39(3) of the Income Tax

Ordinance, 2001. For ease of reference, the said provision is

reproduced below:-

(3) Subject to sub-section (4), any amount

received as a loan, advance, deposit [for issuance of
shares] or gift by a person in [a tax year]from
another person (not being a banking company or
financial institution) otherwise than by a crossed
cheque drawn on a bank or through a banking
channel from a person holding a National Tax
Number shall be treated as income chargeable to tax
under the head Income from Other Sources for the
tax year in which it was received.

78. We have been informed that Respondent No.7

held a National Tax Number (NTN) at the time when the gifts

were made and continues to do so. The said assertion has

not seriously been contested by the Petitioners. As such, the

amounts sent by him by way of gifts to Respondent No.1

enjoyed exemption from payment of income tax and were

not required to be treated as income from other sources as

visualized in Section 39(3) ibid. Further, the amounts

received by Respondent No.1 from Respondent No.7 were

transmitted through banking channels and were duly

declared to the tax authorities. Some Tax Returns and

Account Statements reflecting the above position have been

filed and examined by us. Prima facie, the amounts received

as gifts appear to be covered by the exemption provided in

Section 39(3) ibid. Likewise, the cash gifts given by

Respondent No.1 to Respondents No.6 & 8 were also given

through banking channels/crossed cheques and were duly

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 549
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

declared by the donor/donee in his/her Returns where

required. As such, these transactions have not been found

by the tax department to be in violation of provisions of the

tax laws. We are therefore not inclined to arrogate to

ourselves the role of the tax department, and / or tax

auditors, reopen the tax history of the Respondents and

record findings of our own. In case, the petitioners have any

definite information regarding tax evasion, they are at

liberty to approach the competent authorities who will

proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

79. While on the subject of gifts, we may observe

that between the years 2011 to 2015, Respondent No.1 had

received amounts in excess of Rs.840 million by way of gifts

from Respondent No.7. On being directed by us, the learned

counsel for Respondent No.7 filed documents showing how

and from where the funds originated and were routed to the

account of Respondent No.1. The documents have been

examined by us. We have noticed that most of the funds

were sent from the accounts of an entity operating in Saudi

Arabia under the name and style of Hill Metals

Establishment. This company/entity is allegedly owned and

operated by Respondent No.7 and appears to be a highly

profitable business, enabling Respondent No.7 to send tens

of millions of rupees to Respondent No.1 as gifts on a

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 550
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

regular basis. It was claimed that the Company is a

successful concern and is generating huge amounts of

profits out of which certain sums are sent by Respondent

No.7 to Respondent No.1 by way of gifts. Since this

information has come before us during the course of these

proceedings and appears to have some significance, we

cannot simply skim over it. This information by itself,

considering the volume of money being generated and

circulated, identity of the parties involved and the

seriousness of allegations against them raises a number of

questions which have no obvious answers and nothing has

been placed on record nor has any attempt been made to

provide any answers. The record is completely silent on the

question how and when Hill Metals Establishment was set

up by Respondent No.7, who are its shareholders, what was

the source of funds which were used to set up this business

and why such huge amounts of money are being circulated

through the said company. It has also not been explained

whether or not Respondent No.1 who is the recipient of

these funds has any direct, indirect, overt or covert nexus or

connection with the said company. In todays world of

offshore companies, dummy directors and elaborate devices

to hide and camouflage financial transactions, as has been

seen in this case, direct evidence is seldom found. However,

there are telltale signs that may point towards the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 551
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

possibility of legal, beneficial or equitable interests in

financial resources or assets. Receipt and use of financial

benefits is one such sign. Therefore, owing to admitted

receipt of sums in excess of Rs.840 Million between 2011 to

2015 by Respondent No.1 from Respondent No.7, the

possibility of a beneficial interest of Respondent No.1 in

assets ostensibly held in the name of Respondent No.7

cannot be ruled out. As a corollary, if it is found that there is

any such interest of Respondent No.1 in Hill Metals

Establishment, his failure to declare the same in the

Nomination Papers and Tax Returns could attract the

provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution for

disqualification of Respondent No.1. Further, the value of

these assets of Respondent No.7 appear to be

disproportionate to his known sources of income and

Respondent No.1, being their father, keeping in view the

huge amounts received by him through gifts needs to

explain his position. In these circumstances, prima facie

provisions of Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 14(c) of the

NAO are attracted.

80. During the course of hearing of these petitions, it

has also come to our notice that Respondent No.1 and his

family were the subject matter of a number of

investigations in the past. There were serious charges of

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 552
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

corruption and money laundering in which context two FIRs

were lodged and a Reference was also filed by the National

Accountability Bureau (NAB) which inter alia relied upon a

confessional statement made by Respondent No.10 giving

details of the mode and manner, persons and entities

involved in activities ranging from money laundering to

trans-border movement of allegedly tainted money and real

estate investments in other countries. Respondent No.10

was granted pardon by the Chairman, NAB presumably in

return for his offering to cooperate and providing the

requisite information. Respondent No.10 subsequently

resiled from his confessional statement. The Reference filed

by NAB did not proceed for many years for various reasons

including absence of Respondent No.1 and his family from

the country, having been sent into exile after the events of

1999. Subsequently, the Reference was quashed by a

Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on technical

grounds in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction in a case

reported as Hudaibiya Paper Mills Ltd. v. Federation of

Pakistan (PLD 2016 Lahore 667). It is important to note that

one of the learned Judges comprising the Bench while

quashing the Reference held that NAB may if it deemed

appropriate reinvestigate the matter while the other

Member of the Bench disagreed on the point of

reinvestigation and held that such reinvestigation would

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 553
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

amount to providing the prosecution an opportunity to fill

the lacuna in its earlier investigation. The Honble Chief

Justice of the Lahore High Court referred the point of

disagreement to a Referee Judge who agreed with the

finding that the NAB could not be allowed to reinvestigate

the matter.

81. Owing to the importance of the issue and

considering the consistent practice of NAB that most

verdicts of the High Court which had any adverse impact on

investigations and prosecutions being conducted by the

NAB were challenged before this Court, we were surprised

why this judgment was not challenged and whether failure

to challenge was based upon the fact that the parties

involved were influential and prominent in the corridors of

power. In order to clarify the position, we summoned the

current Chairman, NAB as well as the Prosecutor General,

NAB along with the record to explain the position. On being

questioned lame, feeble and unconvincing excuses were put

forth to the effect that an internal opinion was sought from

in-house counsel who opined that in view of the fact that

two Honorable Judges of the Lahore High Court had

recorded findings against NAB on the question of

reinvestigation, there were slim chances of success of an

appeal before this Court. The then Chairman, NAB who, not
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 554
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

unsurprisingly is also the current Chairman appears to have

readily agreed with such opinion and decided to shelf the

matter by not filing an appeal before this Court. Despite our

serious misgivings regarding the motivation, merit and

impartiality of such decision, the Chairman, NAB blatantly

and unapologetically defended his action and stated that he

would stick to his earlier decision despite discovery of new

material and evidence.

82. The fate of the afore-noted FIRs was no different

which were also quashed by a Bench of the Lahore High

Court in a case reported as Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v.

Federation of Pakistan (1999 P. Cr. L. J 1584). The accused

were acquitted and the chapter of investigation and trial for

allegations of corruption and money laundering was

unceremoniously, prematurely and abruptly closed.

83. In our quest to judge, analyze and examine the

inclination, disposition and ability of the State institutions

and functionaries created and charged with the

responsibility to probe, investigate, inquire into matters of

this nature and to safeguard and protect the interest of the

State and the people of Pakistan, in case any wrongdoing

was found, we also summoned Representatives of FIA, FBR

and Ministry of Interior to appear before us. They were

required to inform us about the steps taken by them in the

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 555
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

wake of Panama Leaks and information becoming available

about possible tax evasion, money laundering and other

offences committed inter alia through offshore companies

and accounts. The Ministry of Interior pleaded lack of

jurisdiction so did the FIA which stated that nobody had

approached it in this regard. It also pleaded lack of

jurisdiction. The FBR took the stance that it had taken

immediate cognizance of the matter and issued notices to

all those whose names had appeared in the Panama Papers.

This, immediate cognizance translated into halfhearted

issuance of some notices six months after the information

came into public domain which speaks volumes about the

lethargy, carelessness and inefficiency displayed by the

premium tax and financial watchdog of the country. On

behalf of the NAB, it was stated by a person no less than its

Chairman himself that it was waiting to be approached by

the regulators, like SECP, FBR, State Bank of Pakistan, etc

before it could initiate any proceedings. When his attention

was drawn to the provisions of the NAO which empowers

NAB to initiate proceedings on its own accord and asked

why such powers had not been exercised, he had nothing

much to say except to mumble a halfhearted apology and

an equally halfhearted promise to look into the matter. We

are perturbed and disappointed to find that State

functionaries/institutions charged with the responsibility to

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 556
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

enforce law and safeguard the interests of the State by

strict, impartial and unbiased enforcement of the laws are

disinclined, disinterested and unwilling to do so. We are in

no manner of doubt that by conscious planned and

premeditated design all important State institutions which

could offer any resistance or act as impediments in the way

of loot and plunder of State resources which rightfully

belong to the people of Pakistan by those who wish to

impoverish our country and its people have been captured,

taken over and neutralized by appointment of their

handpicked officers in complete disregard of merit, honesty

and integrity to head such institutions. These cronies owe

their loyalty to their masters to whom they are beholden

and do not feel any sense of allegiance, loyalty or fidelity to

the country or its people. This state of affairs has brought us

to the sorry, pitiable, pathetic and heart breaking situation

that we find ourselves in. Being the apex Court of the

country and custodians of the Constitution which has placed

upon us the responsibility and constitutional mandate to

enforce fundamental rights of the people, we cannot look

away become unconcerned bystanders and close our eyes

to this stark, painful and grim reality. The people of Pakistan

expect and want this Court to enforce the law and the

Constitution and exercise the powers conferred on it by the

Constitution truly, faithfully, honestly, transparently, fairly

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 557
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

and in the interest of the country and its people. Our oath of

office obligates us to preserve, protect and defend the

Constitution to do right to all manner of people according to

law, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. We are,

therefore, bound to perform our legal and constitutional

duty to do justice considering the facts and circumstances

of these cases in exercise of powers granted to us by the

Constitution and the people of Pakistan in terms of Articles

184(3) and Article 187 of the Constitution.

84. The learned counsel for the Respondents have

laid much stress on the powers of this Court under Article

184(3) of the Constitution and passing orders in terms of

Articles 62 & 63 of the Constitution. In this context, the

learned counsel for Respondent No.1 as well as Respondent

Nos.6, 7 & 8 have emphasized that this Court has

traditionally refrained from delving into situations/cases

which involve factual controversies requiring recording of

evidence. The only exceptions being cases where irrefutable

or unrebutted evidence is available or necessary facts are

admitted by the parties. It may, however, be noted that new

jurisprudence of this Court has evolved in the past few

years in matters involving fake degrees and dual citizenship

held by the Parliamentarians. The principles regarding

exercise of powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 558
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

are undergoing a process of evolution and fresh ground is

being broken. The argument made by the learned counsel

for the Respondents that evidence cannot be recorded or

factual inquires cannot be conducted in exercise of powers

under Article 184(3) of the Constitution may be based on

some precedent but we find that this is not a hard and fast,

inflexible and rigid principle of law. It has only been followed

by way of practice and expediency with exceptions being

created and jurisdiction being extended from time to time

where the facts and circumstances so required. By way of

illustration, the case of Pakistan Muslim League (N) v.

Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2007 SC 642] may be cited. In

this case, this Court held that that there was no bar on the

power of this Court under article 184(3) of the Constitution

to record evidence provided voluminous record and

complicated questions of fact and law were not involved.

This Court is not a slave of the doctrine of stare decisis. We

are not shackled by the chains of precedents where the

interests of the people of Pakistan so demand. While

remaining within the four corners of the law and limits set

for us by the Constitution, in order to do complete justice,

there is no bar on the power of this Court to record evidence

in appropriate cases and pass such orders as may be

necessary.
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 559
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

85. There are serious allegations of money

laundering, corruption and possession of assets beyond

known means and or acquiring assets, the sources of which

have not been explained. It is also important to note that

Respondent No.1 has repeatedly admitted that the Mayfair

Properties were purchased by his family with the funds

generated from sale of Steel Mills in Saudi Arabia.

Respondents No.6 to 8 have also admitted that the said

properties are owned by the Sharif Family while Respondent

No.7 has been claiming that the properties were purchased

by him. Neither Respondent No.1 nor Respondents No.6 to 8

have placed any credible evidence or material on record

that may conclusively establish the real ownership of the

Mayfair Properties. Despite at least 26 hearings spread over

months, it has not been made clear to us whether the real

owner of the properties is Respondent No.1, Respondent

No.6 or Respondent No.7. Although it has been alleged by

the petitioners that Respondent No.1 is real owner of the

properties, they have not been able to produce any credible

evidence to substantiate their assertion. The Mayfair

Properties have been continuously in possession and use of

the children of Respondent No.1 since 1993/96, when

admittedly they had no independent sources of income. We

have already discarded the explanation offered by

Respondent No.7 based on the letters of Sheikh Hamad as

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 560
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

dubious and hard to believe. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the possibility of direct or

indirect/Benami ownership of Respondent No.1 cannot be

ruled out. The position that emerges is that it is not possible

for us to conclusively hold that Respondent No.1 is the

owner of the properties and thereby require him to explain

the source of funds which were used to acquire such

properties but it is equally difficult for us to hold that he is

not the owner of the said properties. Owing to the fact that

provisions of Section 9(a)(v) read with Section 14(c) of the

NAO are prima facie attracted, it is for them to produce the

requisite evidence and record to show the real ownership of

the properties and legitimate sources and transactional

money trails to show lawful movement of funds for

acquisition of the same in an investigation and then before

Courts of competent jurisdiction.

86. It is also an admitted fact that Respondent No.7

owns and operates Hill Metals Establishment in Saudi

Arabia. From the accounts of the said business, huge

amounts of funds have been transmitted to Respondent

No.1 in foreign exchange which have been declared by

Respondent No.1 as gifts on which no income tax is

payable. Respondent No.7 needs to produce all relevant

evidence and record to show the source of funds utilized for

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 561
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

the purpose of setting up the said business.

87. It is also an admitted position that Respondent

No.8 set up a company under the name and style of

Flagship Investments Limited which received substantial

sums of money in the year 2001 when the said Respondent

had no source of income. Over the course of the next few

years, a number of other companies were set up/taken over

by Respondent No.8 allegedly for the purpose of his real

estate business. The sources from which the said

companies/businesses were funded are also shrouded in

mystery. There is yet another company under the name and

style of Capital FZE, Dubai presumably registered under the

laws of UAE. Funds also appear to have been routed through

the said company from time to time by / and on behalf of

Respondent No.7. The real ownership and business of the

said company is unclear from the record which needs to be

explained. No effort has been made on the part of the

Respondents to answer the questions on the afore-noted

matters.

88. In our opinion, considering the high public office

that Respondent No.1 holds and the requirement of

honesty, transparency, clean reputation, unquestionable

integrity, financial probity and accountability for a person

who holds the highest elected office of the land, it was

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 562
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

necessary and incumbent upon Respondent No.1 to place all

information, documents and record before this Court to

clear his own position and that of the members of his family.

Very serious and damaging questions were raised and grave

allegations levelled by the Petitioners and the local as well

as international Print and Electronic Media regarding money

laundering, tax evasion, corruption and misuse of authority

on the part of Respondent No.1 and members of his family.

Although lofty claims were made by and on behalf of

Respondent No.1 regarding readiness and willingness to

face accountability and clearing his name, the claims

remained hollow rhetoric. Regrettably, no effort was made

either on the part of Respondent No.1 or that of

Respondents No.7 & 8 who are his sons before this Court, to

come clean, to clear their names, place the true facts and

relevant record before us and the people of Pakistan by

producing all documentary evidence which was either in

their possession, control or accessible to them which could

have answered all unanswered questions, removed all

doubts and put all allegations to rest and cleared their

names once and for all. This was not done and an

opportunity squandered for reasons best known to the

Respondents. Instead refuge was taken behind vague,

ambiguous, fuzzy and hyper technical pleas.

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 563
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

89. Regrettably, most material questions have

remained unanswered or answered insufficiently by

Respondent No.1 and his children. I am also constrained to

hold that I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by

Respondent No.1 (Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the Prime

Minister of Pakistan) and his children regarding the mode

and manner in which the said properties came in their

possession and what were the sources of funds utilized for

acquisition of the same. Further, the source(s) of funding for

Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metals Establishment in Saudi

Arabia, Flagship Investments Limited and a number of other

companies set up/taken over by Respondent No.8 also need

to be established. In addition to the affairs of Capital FZE,

Dubai which also appears to be owned by Respondent No.7

need an inquiry. The aforesaid investigation and inquiry

under normal circumstances should have been conducted

by NAB. However, it has become quite obvious to us during

these proceedings, Chairman NAB is too partial and partisan

to be solely entrusted with such an important and sensitive

investigation involving the Prime Minister of Pakistan and

his family. Further owing to the nature and scope of

investigation a broader pool of investigative expertise is

required which may not be available with NAB.

90. In the afore-noted circumstances, I would order

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 564
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

as follows:-

i) A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) shall be

constituted, which shall investigate the
matter, collect all relevant record and
material in order to determine and
establish the real title and ownership of the
Mayfair Properties, the source(s) of funds
utilized for purchase of the said properties
and the mode, manner and time when such
funds were transmitted to the United
Kingdom for purchase of the Mayfair
Properties;

ii) Likewise, the JIT shall also collect evidence

to determine the source(s) of funds for
establishing Hill Metals Establishment in
Saudi Arabia as well as the mode, manner
and source(s) of funding for Flagship
Investments Limited and all other
companies owned and controlled by
Respondent No.8 from time to time;

iii) Evidence shall also be collected by the JIT

regarding source(s) of funding of Capital
FZE, Dubai; its business activities and role
in transfer of funds to different entities
owned or controlled by Respondents No.7 &
8;

iv) The JIT is also directed to investigate and

find out if Respondent No.1 (Mian
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the Prime
Minister of Pakistan) directly or indirectly or
through benamidars or authorized agents
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 565
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

owns any other properties/assets/financial

resources of any nature including but not
limited to shares through offshore
companies/bank accounts, which have not
been disclosed to the concerned
authorities.

v) The JIT shall consist of the following

members:-

a) A senior Officer of the Federal

Investigation Agency (FIA) not below
the rank of Additional Director
General heading the Team. He shall
have firsthand experience of
investigation of white collar crime and
related matters;

b) A representative of the National

Accountability Bureau (NAB);

c) A nominee of the Securities and

Exchange Commission of Pakistan
familiar with issues of money
laundering and white collar crime;

d) A nominee of the State Bank of

Pakistan familiar with international
banking transactions involving money
laundering and matters relevant to
the investigation;

e) A senior Officer nominated by the

Director General, ISI; and

f) A senior Officer appointed by the

Director General, MI.

vi) Heads of the aforesaid Departments/

Agencies/ Institutions shall communicate
the names of their nominees within seven
(07) days hereof which shall be placed
before the Special Bench for
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 566
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

perusal/approval.

vii) Respondents No.1, 7 & 8 are directed to

associate and render full cooperation to the
JIT, provide any and all record(s),
document(s) and material(s) sought by it
and appear before the JIT, if and when
required.

viii) The JIT may also examine the evidence and

material available with the FIA and NAB, if
any, relating to or having any nexus with
the possession or acquisition of the Mayfair
Properties and the source(s) of funding for
the same.

ix) The JIT shall submit its periodical report(s)

before the Special Bench of this Court
every fortnight. The JIT shall complete and
submit its final report before such Bench
within a period of sixty (60) days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

x) I would request the Honourable Chief

Justice of Pakistan to constitute a Special
Bench to ensure implementation of this
judgment in letter and spirit.

91. On receipt of report of the JIT, the Bench shall

pass appropriate orders in exercise of powers under Article

184(3) read with Articles 187 & 190 of the Constitution

relating to disqualification of Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Respondent No.1 as a

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 567
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if necessary. In this

regard, it may, if considered necessary or expedient,

summon Respondents No.1 (Mian Muhammad Nawaz

Sharif), 7 (Hussain Nawaz) and 8 (Hassan Nawaz) or any of

the said Respondents and any other person having any

direct or indirect connection with or having knowledge

about the matters relevant to these proceedings, to appear

before it for being examined. Further, if so justified by law

and on the basis of material placed before the Bench, orders

may also be passed for filing of a Reference before the

Accountability Court against Respondent No.1, the private

Respondents and any other person having nexus with the

offence.

92. During hearings of these matters and while

examining the various pleas raised by the parties and the

documents and other material placed before us, I have

found it imperative to pass orders and take steps to ensure

that the true facts should come before the people of

Pakistan who have a fundamental right to be governed in

accordance with law, by those who fulfill the requirements

of the Constitution and the law and whose financial

dealings, earnings and expenditures are open to public

scrutiny to show that they meet the test of honesty,

integrity, financial probity and bona fide dealings. It is high

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 568
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

time that standards were set and systems were put in place

to develop a culture of accountability at all levels in order to

cleanse our system and institutions from the evils of

corruption, money laundering, loot and plunder of national

resources by a few, irrespective of their rank or status in the

system.

93. As a Nation, we need to heed the words of the

great poet and philosopher Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal, if

we aspire to reach our true potential and hold our heads

high amongst the comity of Nations:-

94. Before parting with this judgment, I would

acknowledge and appreciate Syed Naeem Bukhari, learned

ASC; Mr. Taufiq Asif, learned ASC; Sh. Rashid Ahmed,

petitioner in person; Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned ASC

for Respondent No.1; Mr. Shahid Hamid, learned Sr.ASC for

Respondents No.6, 9 & 10; Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, learned

Attorney General for Pakistan; Mr. Muhammad Waqar Rana,

ASC; and Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor General, NAB

and their respective teams for rendering valuable

assistance in the matter.

Judge
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 569
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

ORDER OF THE COURT

By a majority of 3 to 2 (Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Gulzar

Ahmed, JJ) dissenting, who have given separate declarations and

directions, we hold that the questions how did Gulf Steel Mill

come into being; what led to its sale; what happened to its

liabilities; where did its sale proceeds end up; how did they reach

Jeddah, Qatar and the U.K.; whether respondents No. 7 and 8 in

view of their tender ages had the means in the early nineties to

possess and purchase the flats; whether sudden appearance of

the letters of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is a myth or a

reality; how bearer shares crystallized into the flats; who, in fact,

is the real and beneficial owner of M/s Nielsen Enterprises

Limited and Nescoll Limited, how did Hill Metal Establishment

come into existence; where did the money for Flagship

Investment Limited and other companies set up/taken over by

respondent No. 8 come from, and where did the Working Capital

for such companies come from and where do the huge sums

running into millions gifted by respondent No. 7 to respondent

No. 1 drop in from, which go to the heart of the matter and need

to be answered. Therefore, a thorough investigation in this behalf

is required.

2. In normal circumstances, such exercise could be

Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 570
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

conducted by the NAB but when its Chairman appears to be

indifferent and even unwilling to perform his part, we are

constrained to look elsewhere and therefore, constitute a Joint

Investigation Team (JIT) comprising of the following members :

ii) a senior Officer of the Federal Investigation

Agency (FIA), not below the rank of
Additional Director General who shall head
the team having firsthand experience of
investigation of white collar crime and
related matters;

ii) a representative of the National

Accountability Bureau (NAB);

iii) a nominee of the Security & Exchange

Commission of Pakistan (SECP) familiar
with the issues of money laundering and
white collar crimes;

iv) a nominee of the State Bank of Pakistan

(SBP);

v) a seasoned Officer of Inter Services

Intelligence (ISI) nominated by its Director
General; and

vi) a seasoned Officer of Military Intelligence

(M.I.) nominated by its Director General.

3. The Heads of the aforesaid departments/ institutions

shall recommend the names of their nominees for the JIT within

seven days from today which shall be placed before us in

chambers for nomination and approval. The JIT shall investigate

the case and collect evidence, if any, showing that respondent

No. 1 or any of his dependents or benamidars owns, possesses or

has acquired assets or any interest therein disproportionate to

his known means of income. Respondents No. 1, 7 and 8 are

directed to appear and associate themselves with the JIT as and

when required. The JIT may also examine the evidence and
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 571
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

material, if any, already available with the FIA and NAB relating

to or having any nexus with the possession or acquisition of the

aforesaid flats or any other assets or pecuniary resources and

their origin. The JIT shall submit its periodical reports every two

weeks before a Bench of this Court constituted in this behalf. The

JIT shall complete the investigation and submit its final report

before the said Bench within a period of sixty days from the date

of its constitution. The Bench thereupon may pass appropriate

orders in exercise of its powers under Articles 184(3), 187(2) and

190 of the Constitution including an order for filing a reference

against respondent No. 1 and any other person having nexus

with the crime if justified on the basis of the material thus

brought on the record before it.

4. It is further held that upon receipt of the reports,

periodic or final of the JIT, as the case may be, the matter of

disqualification of respondent No. 1 shall be considered. If found

necessary for passing an appropriate order in this behalf,

respondent No. 1 or any other person may be summoned and

examined.

5. We would request the Honble Chief Justice to

constitute a Special Bench to ensure implementation of this

judgment so that the investigation into the allegations may not

be left in a blind alley.

JUDGE
Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016, 572
Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017

JUDGE

JUDGE

JUDGE

JUDGE

Announced on _____________ at _______________________.

JUDGE