Ousted PM Nawaz Sharif, seriously or in a light vein, in a private gathering, reportedly said: “Even if my assets do not commensurate with my sources, it is none of your concern”. Coming from three-times elected prime minister, such a statement, even in a light mood, is quite shocking. For a public office holder, it not only attracts disqualification under electoral laws but is also a punishable offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Politicians in their declarations of assets and liabilities, to be filed at the time of elections and thereafter annually as returned candidate, should be honest and transparent. The nomination papers of any contesting candidate constitute a benchmark for reviewing his/her integrity and probity in the discharge of his/her duties and functions as an elected legislator. Statement of assets and liabilities along with other financial disclosures under section 12(2) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 (ROPA), now replaced with Election Act, 2017, is an essential document for the public to determine the suitability of any candidate. Any wrong declaration or concealment of facts on oath in nomination papers, annual declarations or tax returns by an elected member of candidate, in any matter, whether financial or not [for example concealment of fact of employment abroad — Iqama — or wrong claim of educational qualification] is perjury and warrants disqualification. The Supreme Court in the case of Mian Najeebud din Owasi vs Amir Yar Waran (PLD 2013 SC 482) directly disqualified a candidate who made a false declaration in the nomination papers in the column meant for academic qualification. This adequately answers the oft-repeated question posed by Nawaz Sharif: “Why was I kicked out?” (mujhe kyun nikala?) Of course, it was because of the wrong statement on oath. The Supreme Court in its order on review petitions (CRP 297 to 299 of 2017, CRP 303 of 2017, 308 to 3012 of 2017) filed by Nawaz Sharif and children held that: “The argument that the petitioner could not be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution without recording evidence, in a proceeding under article 184(3) of the constitution also runs counter to the settled law of the land as this court in the case of Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi vs Federation of Pakistan (2012 PLD SC 1089) while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution proceeded to disqualify the person elected, who despite being disqualified in terms of Article 63(1)(c) of the constitution made a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination papers to the contrary.” Statement of assets and liabilities along with other financial disclosures under section 12(2) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 (ROPA), now replaced with Election Act, 2017, is an essential document for the public to determine the suitability of any candidate The Supreme Court also dispelled the argument that “violation of sections 12 and 13 of the ROPA only called for the rejection of nomination papers or at its worst, removal of the petitioner from public office and not his disqualification under Article 62(1)(F) of the constitution”. This argument, Supreme Court noted, “is devoid of force when the petitioner deliberately concealed his assets and wilfully and dishonestly made a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination papers. It is not something to be looked at with a casual eye and outlook”. It further observed that “it is not only a legal duty but a qualifying test for the candidates who in the later days preside over the destiny of the people. Earlier, Supreme Court in the case of Rai Hassan Nawaz vs Haji Muhammad Ayub and others (2017 PLD 70 SC held: “Where assets, liabilities, earnings and income of an elected or contesting candidate are camouflaged or concealed by resort to different legal devices including benami, trustee, nominee, etc. arrangements for constituting holders of title, it would be appropriate for a learned Election Tribunal to probe whether the beneficial interest in such assets or income resides in the elected or contesting candidate in order to ascertain if his false or incorrect statement of declaration under Section 12(2) of the ROPA is intentional or otherwise.” Nawaz Sharif keeps on complaining that why he alone is being probed. His critics consider this statement irritating since the government is that of Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) and it is quite capable to probe ‘others’ as well. Cases against Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen have already been concluded by Supreme Court. So he alone is not under scrutiny. At the time of election, all candidates in their nomination papers are required to give a declaration that they fulfil the qualifications specified in article 62 and are not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in article 63 of the constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The candidates are bound to file a declaration that no loan for an amount of two million rupees or more were obtained from any bank, financial institution, cooperative society or corporate body in their own name or in the name of their spouses or any of their dependents, or any business concern mainly owned by them, was not unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or they were beneficiary of any loan write off. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) allowed Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif to contest elections in 2013 despite the fact that it received information from the State Bank that money borrowed from nine banks during 1994-95 was outstanding against their companies. In 2011, they got back all assets, surrendered after a deal with Musharraf, through order of Lahore High Court (PLD 2012 Lahore 515) but did not return the loans. Admittedly, they paid loans by December 2014. It is still a mystery as to how the ECP allowed them to contest election in 2013 when loans were outstanding. Although it is a fact that declarations filed by a vast majority of parliamentarians hardly justify their standard of living, yet National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) are not inclined to scrutinise their declarations of assets, liabilities, incomes and expenditures. According to a press report, ECP has scrutinised the annual declarations of assets of as many as 100 parliamentarians — the process commenced on December 1, 2016. There is no disclosure from the ECP if any legislator is found guilty of concealing his/her assets or making any other false declarations that constitutes committing ‘corrupt practices’ under the law prescribing imprisonment for a term of up to three years. ECP has yet not made public the results of its scrutiny of declarations of 100 parliamentarians. People have a right to know about it under Article 19A of the constitution. The writer, Advocate Supreme Court, is Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq Published in Daily Times, December 10th 2017.