Accepting a plea seeking disqualification of Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah on the basis of holding dual nationality, the apex court on Tuesday issued Shah a notice. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, heard review petition of Roshan Ali Buriro, who has alleged that Sindh CM Murad Ali submitted false declaration while filing nomination papers for general election 2013.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Azmat and Justice Ijaz issued a notice to the Sindh chief minister, while Justice Umar Ata abstained. Hamid Khan, representing the petitioner, argued that the Sindh CM held an Iqama (work permit) and was dual national of Pakistan and Canada. The incumbent CM Sindh did not produce any document showing that he had given up his Canadian nationality. He contended that Murad Ali Shah be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of Constitution.
During the course of hearing, Justice Bandial pointed out that a court declaration regarding Article 62 is required in the matter. Upon that Justice Azmat said a court order suffices as a court declaration. He said that every electoral candidate provides a declaration to the returning officer and Article 62(1)(f) applies to any declaration that is not based on truth.
A three-member bench of the SC headed by Judge Umar Ata Bandial on January 23, 2019 had dismissed an application seeking Murad Ali Shah's disqualification on the basis that the petitioner failed to produce enough arguments to satisfy the court.
At that time, Justice Bandial had observed that the Sindh chief minister had renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2013; therefore, he could not be disqualified on those grounds.
The bench had further said that the petitioner's intent was questionable as he was a political rival of the CM Shah.
"The prima facie [grounds for] disqualification is not clear in this case," Justice Bandial had said at the time. He had observed that Murad's disqualification petition was dismissed by the returning officer (RO), but the petitioner did not challenge his (RO) decision on a legal forum (Election Tribunal), and instead approached the high court.
Comments
Comments are closed.