ISLAMABAD, Mar 1 (APP): The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday directed the petitioner’s lawyer to conclude arguments on the next hearing in a disqualification case against PTI chairman Imran Khan for hiding information about his alleged daughter Tyrian White.
A larger bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohsin Akhter Kayani and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir heard the case filed by a citizen Muhammad Sajid.
At the outset of the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer Hamid Ali Shah Advocate said the PTI chairman had not mentioned his alleged daughter in his nomination papers submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
He prayed the court to de-seat Imran Khan after disqualifying him from membership of the Parliament. The court asked if the respondent was not a member of Parliament anymore then what should be done.
Imran’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja said the ECP had decided the said matter twice. The court remarked that the petitioner had adopted the stance that Imran Khan had not provided the correct information in his nomination papers. The ECP had to answer on this point as well, it added.
The court remarked that how the ‘quo-warranto’ could be applied on Imran Khan when he was no more a member of Parliament, adding that the defence lawyer had also raised the same point.
The petitioner’s lawyer said the PTI chief was stil a member Parliament as he had won the by-polls against seven seats and the ECP had issued notification of his victory. He said that Imran Khan had the status of MNA elect.
The bench asked whether it was compulsory to share the details of kids in accordance with the Election Act.
The lawyer said that it was not necessary for a member to tell the details of children separately but sharing the assets’ details of the kids was compulsory. He said that indirectly it was compulsory to share the information of kids.
The ECP lawyer said that section 137 of the Election Act stated that a member had to share his assets details and liabilities.
Petitioner’s counsel Hamid Shah Advocate said that the oath was necessary for discharging official responsibilities in the Parliament.
However, the petitioner’s lawyer contended that a member start to receive the perks after notification of his victory was issued. He said that the Election Act also described the punishment on a false statement about the tax returns. The court remarked that it meant that only the election would be challenged against the documents submitted.
The court on the occasion also instructed the petitioner to bring all the references pertaining Tyrian White on record.
Meanwhile, Salman Akram Raja said that the petition against his client Imran Khan was not maintainable. The petitioner’s lawyer said that this matter was raised in the election tribunal as well but no comprehensive judgment was passed.
The court asked what would be the consequences of submitting a false affidavit in line with the judgment of the top court.
The court instructed the lawyer to conclude arguments on the next hearing and adjourned the case. The court also directed the ECP to submit the relevant documents in the case.
