Dual nationality: Malik files review petition against Supreme Court judgement

Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its September 20 judgement which issued directives to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to initiate proceedings against him for filing false declaration at the time of filing nomination papers.
While hearing the dual nationality case, the apex court disqualified 11 parliamentarians and directed the ECP to de-notify their respective memberships of parliament. The court also ruled that Interior Minister Rehman Malik, in view of the false declaration filed by him at the time of contesting the election to the Senate in 2008, could not be considered "sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen".
Rehman Malik was also directed to refund all monetary benefits drawn by him till July 11 this year for the period during which he occupied the public office in the same manner as directed in the case of other parliamentarians. Filing the petition through his counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan under Article 188 of the Constitution, Rehman Malik contended: "To hold and to declare a person as such could only have been done after due notice and opportunity of being heard under Article 10(A) of the constitution and Qanoon-e-Shahadat".
He pleaded that dual citizenship was permitted by the Citizenship Act of 1951, adding that the court committed a gross error in law by disqualifying him on the ground of mere acquisition of a foreign state's citizenship and that, too, at a stage prior to the filing of his nomination papers.
"As this finding negates the letter and spirit of clause (c), the appropriate course for this court would be to set at naught the order sought to be reviewed", the Interior Minister said. Referring to the court's order for initiating criminal proceedings against him, Rehman Malik submitted that there was genuine doubt on the interpretation of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and Article 63(1) (c) of the Constitution, as the former allowed dual citizenship, whereas the latter did not. This controversy, he said, was only resolved after the Judgement of the court on September 20 this year.
He submitted that he did not wilfully lie and being a layman was unable to interpret the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 and Article 63(1) (C) of the Constitution as a lawyer. Malik contended that he attended to his work in the Senate with commitment and sincerity and put in long hours on various issues in Committees and Sessions of the Senate.