ISLAMABAD:
Candidates belonging to the ruling coalition government raise objections on Nomination papers for Pakistani Chairman Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan in upcoming by-elections on Earth of supposed material misrepresentation of information about his assets, this has been studied on Tuesday.
According to the project of one a petition that available with Express Tribune, ruling candidates coalition parties will raise objections on several other grounds before returning officers (RO) of respective constituencies on Wednesday (today)
By-elections were called after National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervez Ashraf accepted his resignation. of 11 PTI members on July 28 is exactly 109 days after 131 years. party MPs resigned.
PTI announced on August 5th party the chairman himself will participate in the elections on nine vacancies in by-elections scheduled for September 25th. Imran’s nomination papers last week for NA-22, NA-24, NA-31, NA-45, NA-108 and NA-118, NA-246, NA-237, NA-239.
Petition of Decree party the candidate claimed that Imran Khan had falsely stated in in list of his real estate which he “inherited” 80 channels 4 marla of land in Mauza Rangiyan Faliyan in Ferozvala tehsil of Sheikhupura district, while on income record the land was purchased by Imran Khan in 2004.
“It’s matter of record that said land has not been mutated/transferred in title of Imran Khan Niazi way of legacy as his father died on 19-03-2008, much later purchase and sanction of mutation,” the petition reads.
How important of fact it was stated Imran together with his four sisters jointly purchased land of 500 canals and 9 marla. in Ferozeva village, Tehsil Ferozeva, Sheikhupura district and a registered sale and purchase agreement dated 15-10-2004. with in office of Sub-registrar Tehsil Ferozevala against sale refund of 7,000,000 rupees.
“The specified land plot was jointly acquired in equal shares from Ms. Nighat Iram, also known as Ms. Roshan Nazir Alam, through her Attorney General, Mr. Ikramullah Niazi. Based of registered act of sale and purchase No. 9894 dated 15-10-2004, land with a size of 500 canals and 9 gauze was transferred equally in title of all five buyers, including Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, see Amendment No. 26925 dated November 29, 2004.”
Subsequently, the petition proceeded, the mutation was partially modified by the district official/district collector (income), of Sheikhupura district, see Order No. 1200 dated 26-05-2007 on the exclusion from the designation of land with an area of 109 canals and 8 gauze. of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his four sisters and finally sanctioned the mutation. of land with an area of 391 channels and 1 gauze in title of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi and his four sisters.
“Outside of specified total land, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi received the fifth share, that is 78 Channel 04 Marla, however he mentioned as 80 Channel 04 Marla in nomination papers, which are a different form of false statement, project of the petition continued.
“Falsely mentioning land 80 Channel 04 Marla as inherited, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi declared the value of said property like ZERO. This property is in millions of rupees and without specifying the cost /cost of specified asset/land, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi not only deceived his voters, but also also deceived the relevant authorities. In accordance with current COLUMBIA REGION rate of Sheikhupura, meaning of specified property is in hundreds of million, petition says.
The lawsuit alleged that the consideration paid under the sale and purchase agreement for in purchase of land for about 100 channels 2 gauze according to first mutation of 500 channels 9 gauze or even for 80 kanal 4 marla according to the subsequent mutation is completely inexplicable and not declared in relevant tax record of Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. Thus, it turns out that false the declaration had also was made before the tax authorities.
Second distortion
The petition also stated that second material distortion in in the nomination papers was that Imran mentioned his property of House No. 2, Zaman Park, Lahore, size 148 marl by inheritance. “How important of factImran Ahmed Khan Niazi only inherited 2 channels 08 Marla out of this is property/house”, the petition says.
Regarding ownership information of this is property/house, the petition stated that Shaukat khanum, mother of Imran Khan owned it property/house.
” property passes to five legal heirs of Mst. Shukat Khanum, i.e. four daughters and one son through hereditary mutation No. 6244 sanctioned on 22-01-2010. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi son there is share of 2 Channel 08 Marla and each of four daughters received 01 Channel 04 Marla”, this added.
“Even if all property/house belongs to Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, total area of this is property/house According to the income statement, this is 07 Kanal 04 Marla. So if converted to gauze, it would be 144 gauze, not 148 gauze as mentioned. in Nomination Documents.
READ Imran Reveals assets worth 342 million rupees
Apparently, further stated in the petition, Imran in fact now bought shares of all his sisters in in house/land; so he announced all house/land like him property; “and now real question how and where did he get money/sale refund purchase in shares of sisters in in house; Apparently, there are no declared incomes. purchase whole house except through unknown illegal sources,” the petition reads.
Because knowledge of transaction relating to the subject matter of this objection is especially with Thus, Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi in such a situation, the burden of proof also lies on Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi under article 122 of Order of Qanun-e-Shahadat from 1984 to prove opposite fact”.
“By over-ad share in House No. 2, Zaman Park, Lahore, size 148 gauze under head of inheritance, Imran Ahmed Khan Niyazi used it as a method of action to hide attention amount as well as future acquisition of property”, the petition said.
The draft said that these withholdings could not be called conscientious errors, mathematical error or even stationery mistake in preparation and submission of nomination documents. Rather, it was a deliberate, unambiguous, unqualified, specific, and conscious misrepresentation. of material fact for ulterior motive of concealment of the sale price and use this is for future purchases.
Petition also argued that it was an established principle of the law that once a person has filed an application, stating that he has fulfilled the conditions of Articles 62 and 63 of Constitution, and he undertook that the application was correct, and if such application was made out be incorrect, his nomination papers could be rejected.
“This is the established law, established down High Court that the candidate must provide the crystal clear statement in nomination papers; and making false statement in material information about the order and method in land with an area of 80 canals 04 marla was purchased, as well as a house with an area of 148 marla in Zaman Park, Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi deliberately committed a corrupt practice”, it continued.
“Having made false Declarations under solemn approval within of their nomination papers and submission false Statement in accordance with the verdict of Supreme Court, Mr. Imran Khan Niazi is not honest and Amin and therefore not qualified to be elected or selected as a member of Parliament, because he cannot be called a righteous and upright person according to the provisions of Electoral Law 2017 and Section 62(1)(f) of Constitution.”
Can the RO disqualify a candidate for life
In August 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a Returning Officer (RO) – official responsible for election observation in one or more districts – could not disqualify a deputy for service life under section 62(1)(f) of Constitution.
“After the forum of returning officer lacks attributes of court of law, so electoral disqualification is imposed on in review petition under section 62(1)(f) of The constitution became null and void after the adoption of the 18th Amendment,” reads the 8-page ruling, authored by Judge Umar Ata Bandial.
In October 2018, the Supreme Court in Case of Khawaji Asif finally solved down “objective criterion” test honesty of legislator, stating that section 62(1)(f) cannot apply to every omission or non-disclosure of assets.
Later court set in addition to a lifetime ban of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chief of Balochistan Yar Muhammad Rind in a fake degree case, stating that such disqualifications must be based on oral or documentary evidence, not speculation.
Supreme Court decision in The Khawaji Asif case showed that a mere omission list en asset cannot be called dishonest unless some wrongdoing was involved with its acquisition or retention, which duly established in trial.
In May last yearThe Supreme Court reiterated that there is now a well-established principle that every non-disclosure or false statement is not enough to permanently disqualify a member. of parliament or candidate under section 62(1)(f) of Constitution.
“Purpose and intent must be seen behind of non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The returning candidate will only be disqualified if he/she has dishonestly acquired assets and hides them in order to obtain certain benefits, ”says the 11-page decision, drafted by Judge Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
The verdict has been rendered on petition filed by Shamon politician Badshah Kaisarani, who was disqualified for life expectancy over non-disclosure of her agricultural property inherited from her parents in nomination papers. “If the non-disclosure or misrepresentation is such that it gives the candidate an undue advantage, then that lead to the termination of his candidacy, decision added.
