The court had dismissed the petition against disqualification of Sharifs, filed by the Federation, Speaker Punjab Assembly, Chief Secretary Punjab, proposer and seconder of Nawaz Sharif against disqualification of Sharif brothers, on February 25.
On February 25, a three-member bench of the apex comprising Justice Moosa K Leghari, Justice Sakhi Hussain Bokhari and Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali, had upheld the Lahore High Courts decision to disqualify former Premier Nawaz Sharif from contesting elections, and in another decision had annulled the notification, declaring Shahbaz Sharif, Chief Minister Punjab, as member of provincial assembly.
The court had dismissed petitions filed by the Federation, Speaker Punjab Assembly, Chief Secretary Punjab, proposer and seconder of Nawaz Sharif against disqualification of Sharif brothers. The judgement addressed all the issues raised during the proceedings of the case, these include recusal of the bench, PCO judges, bias of judges, constitution of larger bench, locus standi of the petitioners, qualification and disqualification of members of the parliament under the constitution and interpretation of Representation of PeopleAct 1976.
Addressing the issue of PCO, Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali said in the judgement "this term has been invented when a Provisional Constitution Order was enforced by a brutal force, by deviating from constitutional provisions and taking extra constitutional steps. We are not concerned at this stage as to the reasons, grounds and causes, which had taken place on 3rd of November 2007, particularly in the presence of Tikka Muhammad Iqbal Khans case."
"But we have taken this aspect with another angle in this case, which has necessitated this discourse and is required to be noted by all the concerned stake-holders. The proclamation of emergency, enforcement of Provisional Constitution Order I of 2007 and the issuance of an order in the form of the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, were not enforced upon the advice of the PCO Judge", said Justice Shiekh Hakim Ali in the judgement.
The judgement said that Mian Nawaz Sharif is publicly propagating his biased opinion, and acting in a manner, prejudicial to the integrity of the Judiciary of Pakistan and defaming and bringing into ridicule the judiciary as well as the Armed Forces of Pakistan.
The judgement further said that the seconder and proposer of Sharifs, through their counsels have in fact tried to create division amongst the Judges of this apex Court into two factions of PCO and non-PCO Judges, although at present, all the sitting Judges are those Judges who have taken oath under the present Constitution, and no discrimination or distinction on this account can be made or created amongst them by these petitioners. "It must be kept in mind that the Judges of this Court cannot yield to any temptation and allurement", the judgement said.
The judgement said that, accordingly, the real test to adjudge bias is to examine and analyse the facts narrated and stand taken by a party as to whether in the given circumstances a reasonable and prudent man would feel that the "Bias" in the mind of judge was available or not? In the present case, it is evident and established that all judges of this Court are constitutional judges and the issue of P.C.O. has become a past and closed transaction.
The judgement also mentioned about the accord reached by Nawaz Sharif, saying in order to avoid criminal liabilities for his misdeeds and heinous crimes, malafide and through deceitful means entered into a compromise, for agreeing to 10 years exile in exchange of his release, which agreement was firstly kept on denying with regard to its period of 10 years but when the document was placed before the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan and a press conference was held by Mr Saad Al-Hariri, son of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafique Hariri and the Saudi Intelligence Chief, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif admitted the execution and the exile deal, thus he was disqualified from being elected, as he had committed non-fulfilment of obligation, in breach of that agreement, which act of his was against the Injunctions of Islam which required a person to fulfil all his obligations.
"Accordingly, the impugned order passed by High Court is just and proper and is not liable to be set aside. Resultantly, we hold that proposer, seconder, Federation of Pakistan and all the intervenors have got no right to defend the qualifications and disqualifications of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who has failed to defend those qualities and disabilities of election himself. These persons/petitioners cannot be considered "aggrieved party" and to have a right to be impleaded in the writs or to file civil petitions for leave to appeal in this Court", said the judgement.
While declaring Shahbaz Sharif disqualified from holding elected office, Justice Moosa K Leghari said "It was argued before us that the leaders and workers of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) of which respondent No 1 is the President committed the acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court premises on 28.11.1997".
From the above factual position it will be observed that respondent No 1 had been and is continuously making well determined and decisively resolute efforts to ridicule, defame, harass, downgrade and humiliate the judiciary since 1997 till date, the judgement added.
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif was disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of Provincial Assembly of Punjab as he suffered from an inherent disqualification. The order of the Returning Officer dated 16.5.2008 of acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No 1 was legally unsustainable which is set aside.
The judgement dated 23.6.2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore remanding the case to the Chief Election Commissioner for constituting a three members Tribunal, in the given circumstances of the case, is untenable and of no legal effect, as it will serve no purpose except protracting the proceedings, especially when respondent No 1(Shahbaz Sharif) has taken determinative decision not to appear before any forum, which is evident from the record and proceedings, said the judgement.
The third part of judgement says that "Mr Javed Mehmood, Chief Secretary, Punjab acted in an overzealous manner and exceeded his authority by attempting to seek the impeachment of Province of Punjab in a matter being devoid of remotest connection with the affairs of the administration of the Province of Punjab. Doubtlessly the officer concerned conducted himself in a partisan manner, thereby, conspicuously exposing his leaning towards a sitting Chief Minister, which was adequate enough to adversely reflect the role of civil bureaucracy".