The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday reserved its verdict on an application filed by PTI leader Faisal Vawda against his lifetime disqualification from parliament by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for concealing his dual nationality at the time of contesting the National Assembly election in the 2018 general elections.
An ECP bench last week, headed by the chief election commissioner, had disqualified Vawda for concealing his US citizenship and directed him to return the salary and other benefits he had received as a minister and as a member of the National Assembly, within two months. It had also de-notified him as a senator.
Vawda subsequently filed an appeal with the high court on Tuesday, arguing that the ECP lacked jurisdiction to invoke Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and to disqualify him for life since it was not a court of law. While referring to the IHC order on his previous petition against the ECP proceedings, he stated in his appeal that the commission was directed by the court to “probe the issue of falsity or otherwise of the affidavit expeditiously as per a judgement of the Supreme Court”.
Vawda claimed that the ECP was only required to probe the matter of the affidavit, arguing that the probe could not be used to confer the jurisdiction that only a court possessed under Article 63 (1) (f) of the Constitution.
The PTI leader in his appeal stated that Section 8C of the Elections Act, 2017 allowed the ECP to conduct an election but did not empower it to disqualify a candidate. Also, he added, the Act gave limited power to the ECP to exercise the powers of a tribunal for a period of 60 days after the election of a constituency.
Justice Minallah presided over the hearing on the plea’s maintainability today in which Vawda’s lawyer, Wasim Sajjad, narrated the arguments made in the petition.
At this, the IHC chief justice told Sajjad that instead of giving technical arguments, “tell us the facts.”
“What did the ECP do wrong?” Justice Minallah questioned, adding that the apex court had already explained consequences would have to be borne if an affidavit proved to be false.
Sajjad claimed that his client did not deliberately submit a false affidavit.
At this, the judge asked why a certificate of renunciation of citizenship was not provided. “This court shows restraint in the cases of elected representatives. Tell the court who should have inquired if not the Election Commission,” the judge asked the lawyer, to which the lawyer agreed that the ECP was within its right to inquire.
Justice Minallah asked Vawda’s lawyer what the ECP could have done after determining the affidavit was false and should it have sent the matter to the apex court for a contempt case since the SC had already given a verdict about false affidavits.
When Sajjad argued that the apex court had not pointed out what consequences in particular would entail, Justice Minallah responded: “The SC has clearly written that contempt proceedings will begin.”
Vawda’s lawyer replied that the SC verdict did not use “contempt of court” in particular, prompting the judge to point out the apex court’s verdict was law and had been the cause for the disqualification of other lawmakers as well.
The judge asked if Vawda could present evidence of his US nationality’s renunciation by tomorrow, to which the lawyer said he would have to check.
Sajjad maintained that Vawda had fulfilled his responsibility in accordance with the law such as getting his second passport cancelled and acquiring a certificate from the National Database and Registration Authority saying that he was now only a Pakistani citizen.
“The court is right on the legal side that if the affidavit turns out to be false, then disqualification occurs,” Sajjad said, adding however, that his client did not lie intentionally.
Vawda had secured the National Assembly seat (NA-249) in the July 2018 general elections by narrowly defeating PML-) President Shehbaz Sharif. Two years later, a complaint filed before the ECP against his election stated that he was holding dual nationality at the time of filing the nomination papers. Subsequently, a petition seeking his disqualification was filed before the IHC. Vawda frequently sought adjournments from the ECP and the IHC on different pretexts before finally resigning from the National Assembly’s seat in 2021.
The IHC did not disqualify him as he had already resigned from the assembly but warned of consequences for submitting a false affidavit.
However, when he got elected as a senator last year, he faced another complaint of concealing his dual nationality in 2018. He then moved the IHC against the ECP proceedings.
Chief Justice Minallah who had heard his petition then directed the ECP to conclude the proceedings on the complaint to ascertain as to whether the lawmaker was a dual national at the time of filing of nomination papers.
Justice Minallah had dismissed his petition on November 12 while allowing the ECP to proceed against the PTI senator.
In the Nov 12 order, the IHC chief justice had observed that if the ECP found anomalies in Vawda’s declaration, he might be proceeded against for contempt of court, as a five-member Supreme Court bench had declared that filing a fake affidavit before the returning officer would be contemptuous and besides disqualification, it would entail penal consequences.
