The decision on Shakeel Awan‘s petition against Shiekh Rasheed seeking disqualification for life for concealment of assets, to be announced by a three-member bench of Supreme Court today.
Shakeel Awan after losing to Shiekh Rasheed in general election 2013 filed a petition in electional tribunal claiming that since Shiekh Rashid concealed his assets intentially, therefore, should be disqualified for life and de-seated.
Election tribunal had rejected the appeal on technical grounds. Shakeel challenged the decision of the election tribunal in the supreme court and resultantly a three-member bench including Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed, justice Qazi Faiz Isa, and Justice Sajad Ali Shah was formed to hear the appeal.
Shakeel Awan’s counsel Advocate Shiekh Ilyas had presented before the hounarale court the discrepencies and misdeclaration made by Shiekh Rashaeed. He stated even though shiekh had mentioned his agriculture land holdings in fatehjang to be 983-kannal in his nomination papers , in reality, it is 1080 kanal, therefore lied in his nomination papers.
He also presnted the the discrepency in the price of the plot shiekh owned in bahria town. He observed even though the booking price was 48million and at the moment market price is 60 million Shiekh had stated it to be 10 million only.
Advocate Sheikh Ilyas, reiterated that Sheikh Rashid was involved in the concealment of assets as he had shown his profits from bank account to be 2.2 million where as his bank statement reflected him to have only 5.3 million from which such huge profits can not be made .
Advocate Ilyas contended that the Representation of Peoples Act (RoPA) 1976 obligated all intending candidates to disclose their entire assets failing to which should lead to disqualification for life as per the SC verdict in panamagate of which Mr. Shiekh Rashid was him self one of the petitioners.
At the hearing of the case on March 20, Justice Qazi faiz isa had observed that the concept of strict liabilty had been settled in panama case judgement . He further stated if the rule of strict liability is followed Mr. Rashid would also stand disqualified.
Shiekh Rasheed has already announced that he will respect the honourable courts decision what ever it may be and has filed nomination papers from NA-60 and NA 62.