Since Nawaz Sharif's ouster the issue of iqama has been generating a lot of heat and dust. In that instance, nonetheless, the controversy revolves around the question whether or not it was a flimsy ground for disqualification in view of the fact that the main case from which the issue arose was still to be decided. Iqama, per se, is not the real issue. There is nothing wrong or illegal about it. Countless Pakistanis hold work permits in various countries for visa facilitation or to open bank accounts. As the IHC noted, iqama is merely a residence visa issued by immigration officers. The situation of public office holders is different, however. They surely do not need foreign residence permits to apply for visas, whereas holding foreign bank accounts can lead to all kinds of suspicions unless properly disclosed and justified.
In Khawaja Asif's case, the IHC observed the non-disclosure was about employment as an occupation; it ought to have been truly declared in his nomination papers or, at best, when the statement regarding foreign remittances and details thereof were challenged. The court, of course, was concerned only with legal aspects of the case. But it also entails serious ethical issues. For one it does not behove the holders of high public office to be listed among employees in another country. For another, it involves conflict of interest. A company giving a work permit to an absentee employee may be doing so in the hopes of gaining a return favour in the form of a coveted commercial contract or some other benefit. That is not to say a motive is ascribable to anyone in the present instance, only that iqamas in such cases can cause unnecessary concerns and suspicions. It would be helpful to enact a law clearly stating the dos and don'ts for public office holders so they act more wisely in future.