Posts Tagged ‘Rehman Malik’

Editor’s NOTE: The following op-ed, penned by me, was originally published by NDTV on February 10, 2016. I’m pleased to cross-post the article on my blog from NDTV’s  website without any editing. (Ali Salman Alvi)

Taj Hotel Mumbai

 

David Coleman Headley, a Pakistan-born American national who helped plot the deadly Mumbai terror attack in 2008, has testified that that he visited India seven times before the attacks to scout potential targets for his handlers in Pakistan. During the deposition, Headley repeated the statements he had made earlier in 2011 while testifying in a US court – he said that Pakistan’s main spy agency, the ISI, was involved in planning and executing the attacks which lasted for three days and left 166 people dead.

The news of David Headley’s deposition met with a rather cold response in Pakistani newspapers and electronic media. While a couple of Urdu and English newspapers carried the news, almost all the leading television channels in Pakistan gave no or very little coverage to Headley’s testimony in which he more or less repeated what he had already told a US court.

David HeadleyThere could be a couple of reasons behind the snubbing of Headley’s deposition by Pakistani media at large. One is that David Headley, formerly known as Syed Daood Gilani, was never given any significant coverage in Pakistani media even when he was being tried in a US court where he first stated that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency provided financial, military and moral support to terrorist organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizbul Mujahideen. Pakistan, remember, has always insisted that the ISI has no links to Lashkar-e-Taiba and has categorically denied a connection of “state actors” to the Mumbai attacks.

The other reason which might have kept Headley’s deposition out of the headlines in Pakistan is that it contained nothing new apart from the revelations made by Mr Headley during Monday’s hearing that that two failed attempts to carry out terror attacks in Mumbai were made in September and October 2008. Last but not the least, any statement directly accusing Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency ISI of planning and executing a terror attack would be deemed as anti-Pakistan material among Pakistani media and ultimately won’t see the light of day in Pakistan.

The only notable reaction came from the then interior minister of Pakistan, Rehman Malik. Talking to reporters in Islamabad, he claimed that David Headley was an agent hired by Indian intelligence agency RAW and that India itself was involved in the 26/11 attacks. While these claims would sound outrageously absurd to many readers on both sides of the border, Mr Malik could not care less about that.

While declaring David Headley a RAW agent, Rehman Malik, who now chairs a committee on interior and narcotics control in Pakistan’s Senate (the upper house of parliament), also questioned India’s intelligence failure, pointing out that the terrorist entered India repeatedly without any problems and spent two years photographing and filming potential targets.

Zaki LakhviIndia has long sought Mr Headley’s deposition in a bid to establish a direct connection between the Pakistani authorities and the deadly attacks in Mumbai. It has alleged this clearly and submitted evidence, but the Headley statements will help generate pressure on the Pakistani government to take action against those who masterminded the Mumbai attacks. Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, one of the main accused in 26/11 and a commander with the outlawed militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, was freed from jail last year. Lashkar founder Hafiz Saeed, who moves freely throughout the country, recently praised the Pathankot air base attack and warned of others like it while addressing a public rally in Muzaffarabad.

David Headley’s deposition has come at a time when Pakistan has just given a clean chit to Masood Azhar, chief of the outlawed militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, in the Pathankot attack. According to media reports in Pakistan, the investigators termed evidence provided by India insufficient and claimed that some lower-rung members of the Jaish could be behind the terror attack on the Indian airbase last month. Earlier, Pakistan had told Delhi that cell phone numbers submitted as evidence by Indian
authorities had no record in the country.

What all this adds up to is the return of India-Pak relations to razor’s edge.

 

Source: Pak Media Virtually Blacks Out David Headley’s Revelations

Editor’s NOTE: The following op-ed, penned by me, was originally published by NDTV on January 20, 2016. I’m pleased to cross-post the article on my blog from NDTV’s  website without any editing. (Ali Salman Alvi)

 

Bacha Khan University

 

Pakistan finds itself reeling after yet another terror attack on its soil. Heavily armed militants stormed Bacha Khan University this morning in Charsadda, about 50 kilometers from the city of Peshawar, and opened indiscriminate fire on students and staff members where they had gathered for a poetic symposium to commemorate the 28th death anniversary of renowned Pakhtoon leader and proponent of non-violence Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as ‘Bacha Khan’.

Umar Mansoor, a commander in the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistani (TTP) and the mastermind of the attack on the Army Public School Peshawar in December 2014, first claimed the attack. But the official spokesperson for the Pakistani Taliban disowned it. More than 21 people are reported to have been killed and at least 60 others injured during a two-hour rampage; officials fear the casualties will rise. Four terrorists were shot after the security forces launched a remarkable counter-terror operation in the university’s premises in a bid to control the damage.

Bacha Khan UniversityThe investigations into the terror attack are underway, but we must not avert our eyes from the fact that the attack was the result of yet another intelligence failure and a major security lapse, especially when only three days ago, rumors of security threats to educational institutions triggered the closure of schools in the same region.

In many ways, today’s attack was reminiscent of the gruesome December 2014 terrorist attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar which left over 140 dead – most of them children. The message behind today’s attack is the same. 13 months ago, they targeted a school being run by the Pakistan Army that is actively combating terrorists and eliminating their hideouts in North Waziristan. Today, they attacked a university named after Bacha Khan, the man who laid down the foundations of the politics of the secular Awami National Party that has rendered a number of sacrifices for standing up against the Taliban. The message given by the terrorists is loud and clear: standing up to them has a price, and more often than not, you have to pay that with your blood.

More than the identity of the outfit that has claimed the attack on Bacha Khan University, the people of Pakistan in general and those at the helm of affairs in the country in particular need to counter the mindset of the terrorists and the ideology they preach in the name of Islam. These terrorists are afraid of education. They are afraid of the power of knowledge. The very same mindset and the very same group targeted Malala Yousafzai in October 2012, attacked the Army Public School in December 2014 and stormed a university today, apart from  deadly attacks on polio vaccination teams across the country.

Despite the ongoing operation against the hardcore militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the TTP’s ability to strike in the settled areas of the country should be a matter of concern for Pakistan’s civil and military leadership. The rot is surely deep and Pakistan is passing through extraordinary circumstances which demand extraordinary measures. While it is obvious that it’ll take significant amount of time to eliminate terror from Pakistan, the more worrying part is that the state of Pakistan has shown no clear intent or political will to counter the mindset that has been a major hurdle in developing a counter-terrorism narrative in the country.

After the horrific terror attack on Army Public School that jolted Pakistan’s civil and military leadership, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif announced a comprehensive roadmap to counter terrorism in his 20-point agenda known as National Action Plan.

While the plan looked good on paper, the situation on the ground remains disturbingly awful and unchanged. The plan talked about countering hate speeches and extremist material, choking funding for terrorists and terrorist organizations and dismantling communication networks of terrorist organizations. Point 3 of the plan stressed the commitment to ensuring that no armed militias are allowed to function in Pakistan, while points 10 and 11 talked about the registration and regulation of religious seminaries and a ban on the glorification of terrorism and terrorist organizations through print and electronic media.

Ground realities suggest that little has changed since then – so much so that the incumbent government itself has accepted that the progress on National Action Plan has been unsatisfactory.

Manohar ParrikarThere is another aspect of the attack and that directly affects the already fragile and vulnerable relations between Pakistan and India. Hardliners in Pakistan are linking today’s terrorist attack to a statement given by Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar after the Pathankot terror attack in which he said that “Those who harmed us will feel the pain”. Former interior minister of Pakistan Rehman Malik went as far as to blame Indian intelligence agency RAW for this latest attack on Pakistani soil. The two reckless statements mentioned above underscore the need to show restraint and maturity in the face of adversity. The authorities on either side of the border need to realize that they should not play into the hands of the terrorists.

As far as Pakistani authorities are concerned, they need to focus on the security threats to Pakistan posed by militants who not long ago enjoyed state patronage, and show the intent to take on terrorists without making any discrimination.

Source: How We In Pakistan See Today’s University Attack

This petition has been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution with the prayer that the Parliamentarians having dual citizenship may be declared to be disqualified in terms of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution read with section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.

2. The matter was taken up on various dates, during course

whereof notices were issued to the following Parliamentarians allegedly

having dual citizenship: –

1. Mr. A. Rehman Malik, Senator

2. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Senator

3. Mr. Sabir Ali Baloch, Senator

4. Ch. Zahid Iqbal, MNA

5. Ch. Iftikhar Nazir, MNA

6. Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani, MNA

7. Mr. Farhat Mehmood Khan, MNA

8. Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA

9. Ms. Anusha Rehman, MNA

10. Mr. Jamil Ahmad Malik, MNA

11. Sardar Shahjehan Yousaf, MNA

12. Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, MPA

13. Mr. Tariq Mehmood Alloana, MPA

14. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Chohan, MPA

15. Ms. Nadia Gabol, MPA

16. Ch. Waseem Qadir, MPA

17. Ch. Nadeem Khadim, MPA

18. Ms. Amna Buttar, MPAConstitution Petition No.05/2012 3

19. Dr. Ahmad Ali Shah, MPA

3. Four Parliamentarians, namely, A. Rehman Malik, Senator

(Sr.No.1), Ch. Zahid Iqbal, MNA (Sr.No.4), Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani,

MNA (Sr.No.6) and Mr. Jamil Ahmad Malik, MNA (Sr.No.10) entered

appearance through their counsel and contested the matter. The

Parliamentarians at serial Nos.1, 6 and 10 were admittedly holders of

dual citizenship, however, the Parliamentarian at serial No.4 against

whom sufficient material was placed on record, could not substantiate

that he was not in possession of dual citizenship.

4. This Court suspended the membership of some of the

Parliamentarians detail of which is mentioned hereinbelow: –

Sr.No. Name Date

1. Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani, MNA 25.05.2012

2. A. Rehman Malik, Senator 04.06.2012

3. Dr. Ahmad Ali Shah, MPA 13.06.2012

4. Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, MPA 13.06.2012

5. Ms. Amna Buttar, MPA 13.06.2012

6. Ch. Zahid Iqbal, MNA 25.06.2012

7. Mr. Jamil Ahmad Malik, MNA 03.07.2012

8. Mr. Farhat Mehmood Khan, MNA 04.07.2012

9. Ms. Nadia Gabol, MPA 04.07.2012

5. M/s Muhammad Ashraf Chohan and Ch. Nadeem Khadim

MPAs, after service prayed for adjournment by sending applications,

which were allowed vide order of even date, but subsequently they did

not deny the factum of having dual citizenship.

6. On the other hand, vide orders dated 13.06.2012 &

4.7.2012 proceedings against the persons at serial No.2, 3, 5, 8, 9,

and 13 were dropped as no material was produced against them to

show they possessed dual citizenship. Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC through

CMA No. 2487 of 2012 claimed that Sardar Shahjehan Yousaf, MNA

was the holder of dual citizenship, but when the latter contested the

application through his counsel, the former withdrew his application Constitution Petition No.05/2012 4v and also tendered apology for leveling unsubstantiated allegation, therefore, no further proceedings are called for against Sardar Shahjehan Yousaf, MNA.

7. It is to be noted that Mr. A. Rehman Malik vide letter dated

19.4.2012 stated that he had renounced his citizenship of UK on

25.03.2008. Contents of the letter are reproduced herein below: –

“MINISTER FOR INTERIOR

Government of Pakistan

Islamabad

SENATOR A. REHMAN MALIK

No.I/PS/M/2012

Dated: 19th April, 2012

In Re: CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.5 OF 2012

Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Petitioner

Vs.

The Federal Government through Secretary Law and others

Respondents

Please refer to your letter No.1(3)/2012-AGP dated 31st March 2012,

concerning the above cited Constitutional Petition.

In this regard, it may be informed that by virtue of my continuous

exile in UK for nine years due to political victimization and life threats in Pakistan, which is a matter of public record, I was granted British nationality but I never renounced my Pakistani citizenship as dual nationality is allowed under the Pakistani law. However, I renounced

my British nationality on 25.03.2008 before I held public office. I thus

do not hold any other citizenship including of British nationality except

that of Pakistani citizenship.

Yours sincerely

-sd-

(Senator A. Rehman Malik)

8. It is noteworthy that along with the above letter, no reenunciation form issued by the UK Border Agency was filed in terms of

section 12(1) of the British Nationality Act, 1981 to substantiate the

aforesaid claim. However, copy of letter dated 29.05.2012 issued by Constitution Petition No.05/2012 5

UK Border Agency was placed on record subsequently. The same is

reproduced herein below: –

“Home Office UK Border Agency

Mr. A. R. Malik Our Ref M751044

25 Norfolk Crescent your Ref

LONDON Date 29 May 2012

W22YS

Dear Mr. Malik

Renunciation of British Citizenship

I am writing to inform you are now registered as having renounced

British Citizenship.

Enclosed is the Declaration of renunciation bearing a stamp of

registration. This confirms the date on which you ceased to be a British

Citizen under Section 12(1) of the British Nationality Act, 1981.

Yours sincerely,

-sdMrs CS Hughes

Managed Migration, Nationality Group

Department 73”

9. Plea on his behalf was that he had applied to renounce his

British citizenship on 25.04.2008 before contesting the election of

Senate of Pakistan, but the UK Border Agency did not issue certificate

of renunciation of citizenship and subsequently when this matter came

up before the Court, the Solicitor in UK namely, PHI (Legal) confirmed

that he had renounced his British citizenship through his application

dated 25.04.2008. Alongwith letter, copies of the application form and

cheque of HSBC dated 25.04.2008 in the name of Accounting Officer,

Home Office, issued by Dr. Saeed Rehman were also annexed.

Whereas according to British Nationality Act, 1981, when a person files

application form, declaring that he wishes to renounce his British

citizenship or other British status, UK Border Agency returns the copy

of application form officially signed and stamped, together with the

documents filed with it. Despite repeated directions and opportunities

granted to him, Mr. A. Rehman Malik chose not to file these papers in Constitution Petition No.05/2012 6 Court. This aspect of the case, however, shall be discussed in the detailed order.

10. Prima facie, it is apparent that Mr. A. Rehman Malik

renounced his citizenship after the institution of the listed petition, as is evident from the contents of the letter dated 29.05.2012 wherein he

was informed that he was “… now registered as having renounced

British Citizenship”. In addition to it declaration of renunciation bearing stamp of registration was also enclosed in terms of legal provision noted therein. But, surprisingly the copies of this declaration were not placed on record despite the fact that the Court repeatedly directed for filing of the same. His membership as a Senator was suspended on 04.06.2012, therefore, on account of this reason he could not continue as the Interior Minister of the Government of Pakistan. However, he was appointed as Advisor to the Prime Minister.

11. It appears that to overcome the disqualification, he tendered resignation from the seat of Senate, which was accepted vide

notification dated 11.07.2012 and against the vacant seat he

participated in the fresh elections and was declared successful

candidate vide notification dated 24.07.2012. In the meanwhile, he

filed CMA No.3467/12 stating therein the following reason to resign

from the membership of the Senate and to re-contest the election:-

“That serious allegations were leveled by the opposition and carried by various media that laws were being amended for him, therefore, in order to dispel any such perception and in larger interest of democracy the

applicant resigned as Member of the Senate of Pakistan under his signature on 9th July, 2012. The Senate has issued a notification of acceptance of resignation on 11th July, 2012. The same are placed on record.”

Be that as it may, from the above facts it is established that having

renounced the citizenship and upon issuance of letter dated

29.05.2012 by the Home Office, UK Border Agency, he was satisfied Constitution Petition No.05/2012 7 that disqualification proved against him stood removed, therefore, he should occupy his seat in the Senate free from any disqualification. In this behalf, it is to be noted that knowing well that his British Nationality/citizenship did not stand renounced, he made a false statement before the Court and the petitioner filed petitions for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court against him, which shall be considered separately later on.

12. The petitioner who appeared in person prayed to declare

all the respondent Senators, MNAs or MPAs to be disqualified as they

were holding those offices contrary to the provisions of Article 63(1)(c)

of the Constitution. For convenience same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“63(1) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if –

(a) …

(b) ….

(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the

citizenship of a foreign State”

13. Mr. Waheed Anjum, ASC has appeared as intervenor and

submitted a list of elected representatives, including those who

admittedly were not disqualified as they had no dual citizenship, as

such proceedings against them were dropped, detail of which has been

mentioned hereinabove. It is important to note that in respect of Mr.

Tariq Mehmood Alloana, MPA from Punjab, the matter was seriously

contested by Mr. Alloana, but Mr. Waheed Anjum, ASC stuck to his

stance. But later on, it was found that on the basis of false information

supplied by the FIA, he was seeking his disqualification for being an

MPA and when the matter was further probed and information was

collected from FIA, it transpired that attempt was being made to get

him disqualified with ulterior motives. As such directions were given to Constitution Petition No.05/2012 8 the Additional Registrar of this Court to lodge a criminal complaint against the concerned officers of FIA who had supplied incorrect information. Accordingly, on the application of Additional Registrar, Supreme Court, the case was registered on 04.07.2012. Proceedings against Mr. Alloana were, therefore, dropped.

14. Learned Attorney General appeared on Court notice in

terms of Order XXVIIA CPC and did not support the contentions of

either the petitioner or of the intervenors.

15. It has been emphasized by Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Sr. ASC

appearing for Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani and learned Attorney General

that under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, the phrases, namely,

“… … ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan”, or “acquires the citizenship of

a foreign State” are to be read conjunctively and not disjunctively and

the word ‘or’ appearing in between those phrases is to be read as ‘and’

because in such a situation, according to them, the Members of

Senate, National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies having dual

citizenship could continue in their offices without suffering from any

such disqualification.

16. After hearing the petitioner, learned Attorney General,

learned counsel for the respondents and others, taking into

consideration the relevant provisions of the Constitution reproduced

hereinabove and the material available on record, we are persuaded to

hold that if a candidate suffers from pre or post disqualification under

Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, no sooner such disqualification as

envisaged under the said Article is attracted, becomes and is

disqualified from being elected or chosen, and from being a Member of

the Malis-e-Shoora (Parliament). These provisions have to be

construed strictly by interpreting the same in view of the establishedConstitution Petition No.05/2012 9 principle of interpretation by assigning plain and simple meanings to the words and phrases used therein and avoiding any substitution thereof as the same is not within the ambit of this Court.

17. It is to be noted that a candidate, while filing nomination

papers signs a declaration on oath to the following effect: –

“DECLRATION AND OATH BY THE PERSON NOMINATED

1. I, the above mentioned candidate, hereby declare on

oath that, — (i) I have consented to the above nomination and

that I fulfill the qualifications specified in Article 62 of

the Constitution and I am not subject to any of the

disqualifications specified in Article 63 of the

Constitution or any other law for the time being in

force for being elected as a member of the National

Assembly/Provincial Assembly.

18. The above declaration is applicable to the candidates of

membership of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, therefore,

whoever signs such a declaration is meant to be fully aware of the

constitutional provisions and after signing the said declaration if the

same turns out to be false, he makes himself liable to be disqualified

from being elected or chosen as Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly for making misstatement or

concealment of fact, and also exposes himself to criminal proceedings

contemplated under sections 193, 196, 197, 198 and 199 PPC.

19. In view of the constitutional provisions under Article

63(1)(c) & (p) of the Constitution read with section 99(1)(f) of the

Representation of the People Act, 1976 it is to be seen as to whether

their cases are to be dealt with by the Speaker/Chairman under Article

63(2) or by the Election Commission under Article 63(3) or are to be

de-notified by the Election Commission after having been declared to Constitution Petition No.05/2012 10 be disqualified from being a member of Majlis-e-Shoora or Provincial Assemblies. This Court has earlier dealt with this matter in the case of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani in Constitution Petition No. 40 of 2012, etc. He was convicted by a 7-Member Bench vide judgment dated 26.04.2012 for contempt of Court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and sentenced under section 5 of the said Ordinance and the reference filed by one Maulvi Iqbal Haider before the Speaker of

Assembly to declare him disqualified under Article 63(2) was answered

in the negative. Thereafter, the ruling of the Speaker was challenged

before this Court through Constitution Petitions which were allowed

and while dealing with the similar issue, the Court vide judgment

dated 19.06.2012 held as under: –

“As a Bench of 7 Hon’ble Judges vide judgment dated 26.04.2012 followed by the detailed reasons released on 08.05.2012 has found Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani guilty of contempt of Court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section

3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court under section 5 of the said Ordinance, and since no appeal was filed against this judgment, the conviction has attained finality. Therefore, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has become disqualified from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament) in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution on and from the date and time of pronouncement of the judgment of this Court dated

26.04.2012 with all consequences, i.e. he has also ceased to be the Prime Minister of Pakistan with effect from the said date and the office of the Prime Minister shall be deemed to be vacant accordingly;

The Election Commission of Pakistan is required to issue

notification of disqualification of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani Constitution Petition No.05/2012 11 from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora w.e.f.

26.4.2012.”

20. Thus, for the reasons to be recorded later, we declare

that:-

(a) Ch. Zahid Iqbal, MNA, Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani, MNA, Mr.

Farhat Mehmood Khan, MNA, Mr. Jamil Ahmad Malik, MNA,

Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, MPA(Punjab), Dr. Muhammad

Ashraf Chohan, MPA (Punjab), Ms. Nadia Gabol, MPA

(Sindh), Ch. Waseem Qadir, MPA (Punjab), Ch. Nadeem

Khadim, MPA(Punjab), Ms. Amna Buttar, MPA (Punjab), Dr.

Ahmad Ali Shah, MPA (Sindh) have been found disqualified

from being members of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and

Provincial Assemblies because of their disqualification

under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution.

(b) The Parliamentarians/Members of Provincial Assemblies,

who have been declared to be disqualified, in view of the

established fact that they have acquired the citizenship of

Foreign States, therefore, no question has arisen, which is

to be determined by the Chairman/Speaker. Thus, no

reference under Article 63(2) is being made.

(c) The Election Commission is directed to de-notify the

respective memberships of Parliament/Assemblies of

aforesaid persons.

(d) All the Members of the Parliament/Provincial Assemblies

noted above had made false declarations before the

Election Commission while filing their nomination papers

and as such appear to be guilty of corrupt practice in terms Constitution Petition No.05/2012 12 of Section 78 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976, therefore, the Election Commission is directed to institute

legal proceedings against them under section 82 of the Act

read with sections 193, 196, 197, 198 and 199 PPC in

accordance with law.

(e) The members of Parliament/Provincial Assemblies noted

hereinabove, being disqualified persons are directed to

refund all monetary benefits drawn by them for the period

during which they occupied the public office and had drawn

their emoluments etc. from the public exchequer including

monthly remunerations, TA/DA, facilities of

accommodation along with other perks which shall be

calculated in terms of money by the Secretaries of the

Senate, National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies

accordingly.

(f) The amount, so recovered from all of them by respective

Secretaries shall be deposited in the public exchequer

within a period of two weeks and compliance report shall

be sent to the Registrar.

(g) As regards the case of Senator A. Rehman Malik, it may be

noted that at the time of filing of nomination papers for

election to the Senate held in the year 2008, he had made

a false declaration to the effect that he was not subject to

any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 of the

Constitution or any other law for the time being in force for

being elected as a member of the Parliament/Provincial Assembly, therefore, reference will be required to be made Constitution Petition No.05/2012 13 to the Chairman Senate under Article 63(2) in view of the

provision of section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976, which lays down that a person shall not be qualified from being elected or chosen as a member of an Assembly unless he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen. Mr. A. Rahman Malik, in view of the false declaration filed by him at the time of contesting the election to the Senate held in the year 2008, wherein he was elected, cannot be considered sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen within the contemplation of section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976. Therefore, for such purposes

Article 63(p) is to be adhered to because the disqualification incurred by him is envisaged under the law, referred to hereinabove in view of his own statement that he had renounced his citizenship of UK whereas the fact remains that such renunciation along with declaration can only be seen as having been made on 29.05.2012.

(h) Senator A. Rehman Malik is directed to refund all monetary benefits drawn by him upto 11.7.2012 for the period during which he occupied the public office in the same manner as directed in the case of other Parliamentarians noted above.

(i) As Mr. A. Rehman Malik had made false declarations while filing his nomination papers before the Election Commission in the election held in the year 2008, therefore, the Election Commission is directed to institute Constitution Petition No.05/2012 14 legal proceedings against him as it has been directed in the case of above said parliamentarians.

21. The Election Commission of Pakistan is also directed to examine the cases of the Parliamentarians and the members of Provincial Assemblies, individually, by obtaining fresh declaration on oath from all of them that they are not disqualified under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution.

22. The titled Constitution Petition is disposed of in the above

terms. However, the Criminal Original Petitions are adjourned to a

date in office.

Chief Justice

Judge

Judge

Announced on 20th September, 2012 at Islamabad.