IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
C. M. A. NO. 4978 OF 2017 IN CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016 ETC.  
(Report by JIT).  
AND 
 
C. M. A. NO. 2939 OF 2017 IN CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016 ETC.  
 
Imran Ahmed Khan and others. 
 
                …Applicant(s) 
Versus 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,  
Prime Minister of Pakistan.  
 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. 
 
 
                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,  
Prime Minister of Pakistan, etc. 
 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 30 OF 2016.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed. 
 
 
                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, 
 Justice and Parliamentary Division, etc. 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 03 OF 2017.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Siraj-ul-Haq, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan.                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of  
Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others. 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
……………… 
 
 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
2
IN ATTENDANCE. 
(in Const. P. 29/2016). 
 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Syed Naeem Bokhari, ASC  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Fawad Hussain Ch., ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Faisal Fareed Hussain, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by :  
 
 
 
 
Barrister Maleeka Bokhari. 
 
 
 
 
Shahid Naseem Gondal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Kashif Nawaz Siddiqui, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
M. Imad Khan, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 1: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 2: 
 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, APGA. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. M. Fariid-ul-Hassan, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imran-ul-Haq, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ajmal Aziz, Spl. Prosecutor.  
 
For respdts. 3 to 5 : 
 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
 
For respdts. 6 to 9: 
 
Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Asad Ladha, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Ghulam Sabir Malik, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Usman Ali Bhoon, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
M. Shakeel Mughal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Aftab Zafar, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 10: 
 
Dr. Tariq Hassan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
Const. P. 30 of 2016.  
 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, (in person) 
 
For the respdts. 1 & 3: 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
3
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
For respdt. No. 2 : 
 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, APGA. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. M. Fariid-ul-Hassan, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imran-ul-Haq, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ajmal Aziz, Spl. Prosecutor.  
 
For respdt. No. 4: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
Const. P. No. 03 of 2017. 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Atif Ali Khan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Saifullah Gondal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Sher Hamad Khan, Adv. 
 
For respdts. 1 to 3: 
 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
 
For respdt. No. 4: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
17th to 21st July, 2017. 
 
 
 
 
(Judgment Reserved).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
4
 
 
 
J U D G M E N T 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- This judgment is in continuation of our 
judgments dated 20.04.2017 in Constitution Petitions No. 29, 30 of 2016 and 
Constitution Petition No. 03 of 2017 which ended up in the following order of 
the Court : 
“By a majority of 3 to 2 (Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ) 
dissenting, who have given separate declarations and directions, we 
hold that the questions how did Gulf Steel Mill come into being; what 
led to its sale; what happened to its liabilities; where did its sale 
proceeds end up; how did they reach Jeddah, Qatar and the U.K.; 
whether respondents No. 7 and 8 in view of their tender ages had the 
means in the early nineties to possess and purchase the flats; whether 
sudden appearance of the letters of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-
Thani is a myth or a reality; how bearer shares crystallized into the 
flats; who, in fact, is the real and beneficial owner of M/s Nielsen 
Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited, how did Hill Metal 
Establishment come into existence; where did the money for Flagship 
Investment Limited and other companies set up/taken over by 
respondent No. 8 come from, and where did the Working Capital for 
such companies come from and where do the huge sums running into 
millions gifted by respondent No. 7 to respondent No. 1 drop in from, 
which go to the heart of the matter and need to be answered. 
Therefore, a thorough investigation in this behalf is required.  
 
2. 
In normal circumstances, such exercise could be conducted by 
the NAB but when its Chairman appears to be indifferent and even 
unwilling to perform his part, we are constrained to look elsewhere 
and therefore, constitute a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising of 
the following members : 
 
i) 
a senior Officer of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), not below 
the rank of Additional Director General who shall head the team 
having firsthand experience of investigation of white collar crime and 
related matters; 
 
ii) 
a representative of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB); 
 
iii) 
 a nominee of the Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) 
familiar with the issues of money laundering and white collar crimes;  
 
iv) 
a nominee of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP); 
 
v) 
a seasoned Officer of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) nominated by its 
Director General; and   
 
vi) 
a seasoned Officer of Military Intelligence (M.I.) nominated by its 
Director General. 
 
3. 
The Heads of the aforesaid departments/ institutions shall 
recommend the names of their nominees for the JIT within seven days 
from today which shall be placed before us in chambers for nomination 
and approval. The JIT shall investigate the case and collect evidence, if 
any, showing that respondent No. 1 or any of his dependents or 
benamidars owns, possesses or has acquired assets or any interest 
therein disproportionate to his known means of income. Respondents 
No. 1, 7 and 8 are directed to appear and associate themselves with 
the JIT as and when required. The JIT may also examine the evidence 
and material, if any, already available with the FIA and NAB relating to 
or having any nexus with the possession or acquisition of the aforesaid 
flats or any other assets or pecuniary resources and their origin. The JIT 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
5
shall submit its periodical reports every two weeks before a Bench of 
this Court constituted in this behalf. The JIT shall complete the 
investigation and submit its final report before the said Bench within a 
period of sixty days from the date of its constitution. The Bench 
thereupon may pass appropriate orders in exercise of its powers under 
Articles 184(3), 187(2) and 190 of the Constitution including an order 
for filing a reference against respondent No. 1 and any other person 
having nexus with the crime if justified on the basis of the material 
thus brought on the record before it.  
 
4. 
It is further held that upon receipt of the reports, periodic or 
final of the JIT, as the case may be, the matter of disqualification of 
respondent No. 1 shall be considered. If found necessary for passing an 
appropriate order in this behalf, respondent No. 1 or any other person 
may be summoned and examined.  
 
5. 
We would request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a 
Special Bench to ensure implementation of this judgment so that the 
investigation into the allegations may not be left in a blind alley.”   
 
2. 
 
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan constituted the 
implementation Bench consisting of Ejaz Afzal Khan, J., Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat 
Saeed and Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan. The Bench vide order dated 05.05.2017 
constituted the JIT consisting of Mr. Amer Aziz, an Officer of (BS-21) who is on 
deputation with NIBAF, Mr. Bilal Rasool, Executive Director, SECP, Mr. Irfan 
Naeem Mangi, Director NAB, (BS-20). Brig. Muhammad Nauman Saeed from 
ISI, Brig. Kamran Khurshid from M.I. and Mr. Wajid Zia, Additional Director 
General (Immigration), FIA to head the JIT.   
3. 
 
The JIT undertook the task thus assigned and submitted a 
complete investigation report on 10.07.2017. Parties to the proceedings were 
provided the report of the JIT and a weeks’ time to go through it. Khawaja 
Harris Ahmed, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 
submitted a CMA expressing his reservations about the report. Dr. Tariq 
Hassan, learned ASC for respondent No. 10 also filed a CMA expressing his 
reservations about the report. Learned ASC appearing for petitioner in Const. P. 
No. 29 of 2016, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, petitioner appearing in person in 
Const. P. No. 30 of 2016 and learned ASC appearing for the petitioner in Const. 
P. No. 03 of 2017, by picking up the thread from where they left off, sought to 
canvass at the bar that the JIT has collected sufficient evidence proving that 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
6
respondent No. 1, his dependents and benamidars own, possess and have 
acquired assets which are disproportionate to their known sources of income; 
that neither respondent No. 1 nor any of his dependents or benamidars before 
or during the course of investigation could account for these assets, therefore, 
he has become disqualified to be a Member of Parliament. They further stated 
that certified copies of the correspondence between Mr. Errol George, Director 
Financial  Investigating Agency and the Anti-Money Laundering Officer of 
Mossack Fonseca & Co. (B.V.I.) Limited collected through Mutual Legal 
Assistance prove that respondent No. 6 is the beneficial owner of the Avenfield 
apartments, therefore, the document showing her as trustee is a fabrication on 
the face of it for which she is liable to be proceeded against for forgery and 
using forged documents; that use of Calibri Font, which became commercially 
available in 2007, in the preparation of the trust deed in February 2006 is 
another circumstance leading to the inference that it was forged and 
fabricated; that narrative of Tariq Shafi vis-à-vis receipt of AED 12 million from 
sale of 25% shares of Ahli Steel Mills formerly known as Gulf Steel Mills is false 
on the face of it which has been confirmed by the JIT in its report; that 
whatever has been stated in Qatri letters remained unsubstantiated as the 
Qatri Prince neither appeared before the JIT nor ever stated his point of view 
through any other legally recognizable means; that respondents were given 
ample opportunities to provide the trail of money and answer the questions 
asked in the order of the Court dated 20.04.2017 but they throughout have 
been evasive; that the discrepancies between the first Qatri letter and affidavit 
of Mr. Tariq Shafi show that neither of them is credible; that the spreadsheet 
attached with the second Qatri letter too is of no help to the respondents as it 
is neither signed nor supported by any documentary evidence; that the entire 
story about trail of money is seriously marred by inconsistencies surfacing in 
the statements of the respondents recorded by the JIT; that story of 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
7
transporting machinery from Dubai to Jeddah and thereby establishing Azizia 
Steel Company Limited still awaits proof; that how the entire amount running 
to SAR 63.10 million could be utilized by respondent No. 7 notwithstanding he 
was entitled to only 1/3rd finds no explanation therefor, the sources 
establishing Hill Metal Establishment have not been proved; that failure of 
respondent No. 1 to disclose his assets deposited in his account on account of 
his being Chairman of Capital FZE would also call for his disqualification, as it 
being an asset for all legal and practical purposes was required to be disclosed 
under Section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976; that the 
respondent denied withdrawal of salary, but payment of salaries to all 
employees electronically, through the Wage Protection System, under 
Ministerial Resolution No. (788) for 2009 on Wage Protection used by United 
Arab Emirates Ministry of Labour and Rules 11(6) and 11(7) of the Jebel Ali Free 
Zone Rules, would belie his stance; that the assets of respondents No. 7 and 8 
have surprisingly grown manifold overnight notwithstanding all of their 
business enterprises run in loss; that the facts and figures showing inflow and 
outflow of Hill Metals Establishment also appear to be fudged and fabricated 
when seen in the light of the material collected during the course of 
investigation by the JIT; that material already brought on the record and 
collected through the JIT leave no doubt that the assets of respondent No. 1, 
his children and benamidars are disproportionate to their known sources of 
income and that their failure to satisfactorily account for them would inevitably 
entail disqualification of respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 9(a)(v) of the 
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999.  
4. 
 
Learned Sr. ASC appearing for Respondent No. 1 contended that 
JIT overstepped its mandate by reopening the case of Hudabiya Paper Mills 
when it was not so directed by the Court; that another investigation or inquiry 
shall also be barred by the principle of double jeopardy when the Reference 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
8
relating to the said Mills was quashed in the case of Hudabiya Paper Mills 
Limited. Vs. Federation of Pakistan  (PLD 2016 Lahore 667); that no evidence 
has been collected by the JIT showing respondent No.1 to have any nexus with 
the Avenfield apartments, Hill Metals Establishment, Flagship Investment 
Limited or any other business concern run by respondent no. 7 and 8; that all 
the material collected and finding given by the JIT do not deserve any 
consideration inasmuch as they are beyond the scope of investigation 
authorized by the order of this Court; that the investigation conducted by the 
JIT cannot be said to be fair and just when none of the respondents was 
questioned about or confronted with any of the documents tending to 
incriminate them and that the JIT exceeded its authority while obtaining 
documents from abroad by engaging the firm of the persons happening to be 
their near and dear. Such exercise, the learned Sr. ASC added, cannot be 
termed as Mutual Legal Assistance by any interpretation nor can the 
documents thus obtained be vested with any sanctity in terms of Section 21(g) 
of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. He next contended that 
no weight could be given to the finding of the JIT when it is not supported by 
any authentic document. An investigation of this type, the learned Sr. ASC 
added, which is a farce and a breach of due process cannot form basis of any 
adverse verdict against respondent No. 1. The learned Sr. ASC to support his 
contention placed reliance on the cases of Khalid Aziz. Vs. The State  (2011 
SCMR 136) and Muhammad Arshad and others. Vs. The State and others  
(PLD 2011 SC 350).  
5. 
 
Learned ASC appearing on behalf of respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and 
9 contended that Avenfield apartments are owned and possessed by 
respondent No. 7, and that the trail of money and the way it has culminated in 
the acquisition of the Avenfield apartments stand explained by Qatri letters; 
that respondent No. 6 besides being a trustee of the apartments at some stage 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
9
of time has not been their beneficial owner, therefore, the correspondence 
between Errol George, Director FIA and Mossack Fonseca & Co. (B.V.I.) Limited 
or the certified copies thereof obtained through an MLA request cannot be 
relied upon unless proved in accordance with law and that the JIT report and 
the material collected by it during the course of investigation per se cannot 
form basis of a judgment in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  
6. 
 
Learned ASC appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10 
contended that assets of respondent No. 10 have been audited and examined 
from time to time but no irregularity was ever found in any of them; that the 
respondent has accounted for whatever assets he owns, possesses or has 
acquired; that his assets were also subject matter of Reference No. 5 of 2000 
which was quashed in the case of Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited. Vs. 
Federation of Pakistan (supra); that another criminal proceeding cannot be 
initiated when everything has been accounted for down to the rupee. The 
learned ASC by producing the income tax returns from 2007 to 2016, wealth 
tax returns from 1981-1982 to 2000-2001 and from 2009 to 2016 contended 
that every asset is property vouched and documented; that the finding of the 
JIT has no legal or factual basis; that no conclusion much less sweeping can be 
drawn on the basis of such report; that 91 times increase in his assets from 
1992-1993 to 2008-2009 shown in the JIT’s report is based on miscalculation; 
that the respondent cannot be impaled on the same charge by imputing a 
wrongdoing without any tangible evidence; that failure on the part of the FBR 
to provide the relevant record cannot be construed to the detriment of the 
respondent when it has been with the NAB Authorities throughout and that 
with this background in view, it would be rather unjust to thrust the 
respondent in another treadmill of tiresome trial before the Accountability 
Court.  
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
10
7. 
 
We have carefully gone through the record, the report 
submitted by the JIT and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs, Sr. 
ASC of the parties as well as the learned Additional Attorney General for 
Pakistan. 
8. 
 
 We have already dealt with the background of the case and 
detailed submissions of the learned ASCs for the parties in paras 1 to 12 of the 
majority judgment authored by one of us (Ejaz Afzal Khan, J) and notes written 
by my learned brothers Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mr. Justice Ijaz ul 
Ahsan. What necessitated the constitution of JIT has been highlighted in para 
19 of the judgment which reads as under :-  
“19. 
Yes, the officers at the peak of NAB and FIA may not cast their 
prying eyes on the misdeeds and lay their arresting hands on the 
shoulders of the elites on account of their being amenable to the 
influence of the latter or because of their being beholden to the 
persons calling the shots in the matters of their appointment posting 
and transfer. But it does not mean that this Court should exercise a 
jurisdiction not conferred on it and act in derogation of the provisions 
of the Constitution and the law regulating trichotomy of power and 
conferment of jurisdiction on the courts of law. Any deviation from the 
recognized course would be a recipe for chaos. Having seen a deviation 
of such type, tomorrow, an Accountability Court could exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and a trigger happy 
investigation officer while investigating the case could do away with 
the life of an accused if convinced that the latter is guilty of a heinous 
crime and that his trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction might 
result in delay or denial of justice. Courts of law decide the cases on the 
basis of the facts admitted or established on the record. Surmises and 
speculations have no place in the administration of justice. Any 
departure from such course, however well-intentioned it may be, 
would be a precursor of doom and disaster for the society. It as such 
would not be a solution to the problem nor would it be a step forward. 
It would indeed be a giant stride nay a long leap backward. The 
solution lies not in bypassing but in activating the institutions by 
having recourse to Article 190 of the Constitution. Political excitement, 
political adventure or even popular sentiments real or contrived may 
drive any or many to an aberrant course but we have to go by the Law 
and the Book. Let us stay and Act within the parameters of the 
Constitution and the Law as they stand till the time they are changed 
or altered through an amendment therein.” 
 
9. 
 
A careful examination of the material so far collected reveals 
that a prima facie triable case under Section 9, 10 and 15 of the Ordinance is 
made out against respondents No. 1, 6, 7 and 8 vis-à-vis the following assets:- 
 
“(i) 
Flagship Investments Limited. 
 
(ii) 
Hartstone Properties Limited; 
 
(iii) 
Que Holdings Limited; 
 
(iv) 
Quint Eaton Place 2 Limited; 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
11
(v) 
Quint Saloane Limited (formerly Quint Eaton Place Limited). 
(vi) 
Quaint Limited; 
(vii) 
Flagship Securities Limited; 
(viii) 
Quint Gloucester Place Limited; 
(ix) 
Quint Paddington Limited (formerly Rivates Estates Limited); 
(x) 
Flagship Developments Limited; 
(xi) 
Alanna Services Limited (BVI); 
(xii) 
Lankin SA (BVI); 
(xiii) 
Chadron Inc; 
(xiv) 
Ansbacher Inc; 
(xv) 
Coomber Inc; and  
(xvi) 
Capital FZE (Dubai).” 
 
So is the case against respondent No. 10 vis-à-vis 91 times increase (from 
Rs.9.11 million to 831.70 million) in his assets within a short span of time. What 
to do in the circumstances has already been dealt with in the majority 
judgment in the words as follows:-  
“Any liability arising out of these Sections has its own trappings. Any 
allegation leveled against a holder of public office under these 
provisions of law requires an investigation and collection of evidence 
showing that he or any of his dependents or benamidars owns, 
possesses or has acquired assets etc disproportionate to his known 
means of income. Such investigation is followed by a full-fledged trial 
before an Accountability Court for determination of such liability. But 
where neither the Investigation Agency investigated the case, nor any 
of the witnesses has been examined and cross-examined in an 
Accountability Court nor any of the documents incriminating the 
person accused has been produced and proved in accordance with the 
requirements of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, nor any oral or 
documentary pieces of evidence incriminating the person accused has 
been sifted, no verdict disqualifying a holder of public office could be 
given by this Court in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution on the basis of a record which is yet to be authenticated. 
We must draw a line of distinction between the scope of jurisdiction of 
this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and that of the 
Accountability Court under the Ordinance and between the 
disqualifications envisioned by Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution 
and Section 99 of the ROPA and the criminal liabilities envisioned by 
Sections 9, 10 and 15 of the Ordinance lest we condemn any member 
of Parliament on assumptions by defying the requirements of a fair 
trial and due process. We cannot make a hotchpotch of the 
Constitution and the law by reading Sections 9 and 15 of the Ordinance 
in Articles 62, 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the Act and pass 
a judgment in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution 
which could well be passed by an Accountability Court after a full-
fledged trial. Nor could we lift Sections 9 and 15 of the Ordinance, 
graft them onto Article 63 of the Constitution, construe them 
disqualifications and proceed to declare that the member of 
Parliament so proceeded against is not honest and ameen and as such 
is liable to be disqualified. A verdict of this nature would not only be 
unjust but coram non judice for want of jurisdiction and lawful 
authority. If a person is sought to be proceeded against under Section 
9(a)(v) and 15 of the NAB Ordinance resort could be had to the mode, 
mechanism and machinery provided thereunder. Let the law, the 
Investigation Agency and the Accountability Court and other Courts in 
the hierarchy take their own course. Let respondent No. 1 go through 
all the phases of investigation, trial and appeal. We would not leap 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
12
over such phases in gross violation of Article 25 of the Constitution 
which is the heart and the soul of the rule of law. We also don’t feel 
inclined to arrogate to ourselves a power or exercise a jurisdiction 
which has not been conferred on us by any of the acts of the 
Parliament or even by Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Who does not 
know that making of a statement on oath in a trial lends it an element 
of 
solemnity; 
cross-examination 
provides 
safeguards 
against 
insinuation of falsehood in the testimony; provisions of Qanoon-e-
Shahadat Order regulate relevancy of facts, admissibility of evidence 
and mode of proof through oral and documentary evidence and thus 
ensure due process of law. We for an individual case would not 
dispense with due process and thereby undo, obliterate and annihilate 
our jurisprudence which we built up in centuries in our sweat, in our 
toil, in our blood.”  
 
10. 
 
The same theme was reiterated by my learned brother Mr. 
Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed by holding as under :-  
“22. 
 It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions 
that the prosecution must establish that a person or his spouse or 
dependent or benamidar owns or possesses a property. If the aforesaid 
allegation is proved then the accused must give an explanation as to 
the source of legal funds for acquiring such property and upon his 
failure to do so, he becomes liable for punishment under the aforesaid 
law. Such punishment not only includes fine and imprisonment but also 
disqualification from holding a public Office, including that of Member 
of the Majlis-e-Shoora for a period of 10 years under Section 15 of the 
NAB Ordinance, 1999. Reference, in this behalf, can be made to the 
judgments, reported as (1) Iqbal Ahmed Turabi and others v. The State 
(PLD 2004 SC 830), (2) Ghani-ur-Rehman v. National Accountability 
Bureau and others (PLD 2011 SC 1144), (3) Abdul Aziz Memon and 
others v. The State and others (PLD 2013 SC 594), (4) The State 
through Prosecutor General Accountability, National Accountability 
Bureau, Islamabad v. Misbahuddin Farid (2003 SCMR 150), (5) Syed 
Zahir Shah and others v. National Accountability Bureau and another 
(2010 SCMR 713), (6) Muhammad Hashim Babar v. The State and 
another (2010 SCMR 1697) and (7) Khalid Aziz v. The State (2011 SCMR 
136). 
23. 
In none of the aforesaid cases was any person convicted 
without a definitive finding that the assets were in fact owned or 
possessed by the accused, his spouse, his dependents or benamidars. 
And thereafter, the accused had failed to account for the source of 
funds for acquiring the said property and if the explanation was found 
unsatisfactory, conviction followed.” 
 
11. 
 
Almost the same view was expressed by my learned brother Mr. 
Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan in the words which reads as under:-  
“58. 
Where there is an allegation that a holder of public office or 
any of his dependents or benamidars owns or possesses any assets or 
pecuniary resources which are disproportionate to his known sources 
of income which he cannot reasonably account for he can be convicted 
of an offence of corruption and corrupt practices and upon such 
conviction, penal consequences would follow. However, such 
conviction can only be recorded by an Accountability Court under the 
NAO, after a proper trial, recording evidence and granting due process 
rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the accused. To transplant the 
powers of the Accountability Court and to attach such powers to the 
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution has 
neither been prayed for by the petitioners nor can it be, in our opinion, 
done without stretching the letter of the law and the scheme of the 
Constitution. Further, such course of action would be violative of the 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
13
principles enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, which 
guarantee to every citizen the right to be dealt with in accordance with 
law, equality before law and entitlement to equal protection of law. 
Adopting any other mode would set a bad precedent and amount to a 
constitutional Court following an unconstitutional course. This, we are 
not willing to do, in the interest of upholding the rule of law and our 
unflinching and firm belief in adherence and fidelity to the letter and 
spirit of the Constitution.” 
 
12. 
 
The argument that the JIT overstepped its authority by 
reopening the case of Hudabiya Paper Mills when Reference No. 5 was quashed 
by the High Court does not appear to be correct as the JIT has simply made 
recommendations in this behalf which can better be dealt with by this Court if 
and when an appeal, before this Court, as has been undertaken by Special 
Prosecutor NAB, is filed and a view to the contrary is taken by this Court.   
13. 
 
The next question emerging for the consideration of this Court is 
whether respondent No. 1 as a Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE is entitled 
to salaries and whether the salaries if not withdrawn being receivable as such 
constitute assets which require disclosure in terms of Section 12(2) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1976 and whether his failure to disclose 
them would entail his disqualification? The word asset has not been defined in 
the Representation of the People Act, 1976, (“ROPA”), therefore, its ordinary 
meaning has to be considered for the purposes of this case. The word asset as 
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary means and contemplates “an asset can be (i) 
something physical such as cash, machinery, inventory, land and building (ii) an 
enforceable claim against others such as accounts receivable (iii) rights such as 
copyright, patent trademark etc (iv) an assumption such as goodwill”. The 
definition of the word receivable as used in the above mentioned definition as 
given in the Black’s Law Dictionary is also relevant which means and 
contemplates “any collectible whether or not it is currently due. That which is 
due and owing a person or company. In book keeping, the name of an account 
which reflects a debt due. Accounts receivable a claim against a debtor usually 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
14
arising from sales or services rendered”. The word ‘receivable’ also has similar 
ring and connotation according to Business Dictionary which reads as under:-  
“Accounting term for amount due from a customer, employee, supplier (as a 
rebate or refund) or any other party. Receivables are classified as accounts 
receivable, notes receivable etc and represent an asset of the firm”. 
 
The definitions reproduced above leave no doubt that a salary not withdrawn 
would nevertheless be receivable and as such would constitute an asset for all 
legal and practical purposes. When it is an asset for all legal and practical 
purposes, it was required to be disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his 
nomination papers in terms of Section 12(2) of the ROPA. When we 
confronted, the learned Sr. ASC for respondent No. 1, whether the said 
respondent has ever acquired work permit (Iqama) in Dubai, remained 
Chairman of the Board of Capital FZE and was entitled to salary as such, his 
reply was in the affirmative with the only addition that respondent No. 1 never 
withdrew any salary. This admission was reiterated in more categorical terms in 
the written arguments filed by the learned Sr. ASC for respondent No. 1 in the 
words as under:-  
“So far as the designation of Respondent No. 1 as Chairman of the Board is 
concerned, this was only a ceremonial office acquired in 2007 when the 
respondent No. 1 was in exile, and had nothing to do with the running of the 
Company or supervising its affairs. Similarly, the respondent No. 1 did not 
withdraw the salary of AED 10,000. Thus, the salary shown in the Employment 
Contract in effect never constituted an “asset” for the respondent No. 1.” 
 
It has not been denied that respondent No. 1 being Chairman of the 
Board of Capital FZE was entitled to salary, therefore, the statement that he did 
not withdraw the salary would not prevent the un-withdrawn salary from being 
receivable, hence an asset. When the un-withdrawn salary as being receivable 
is an asset it was required to be disclosed by respondent No. 1 in his 
nomination papers for the Elections of 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the 
ROPA. Where respondent No. 1 did not disclose his aforesaid assets, it would 
amount to furnishing a false declaration on solemn affirmation in violation of 
the law mentioned above, therefore, he is not honest in terms of Section 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
15
99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan.     
14. 
 
As a sequel to what has been discussed in paragraphs 7 to 11 the 
following directions are made:- 
 
i) 
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) shall 
within six weeks from the date of this judgment prepare 
and 
file 
before 
the 
Accountability 
Court, 
Rawalpindi/Islamabad, the following References, on the 
basis of the material collected and referred to by the Joint 
Investigating Team (JIT) in its report and such other 
material as may be available with the Federal Investigating 
Agency (FIA) and NAB having any nexus with the assets or 
which may subsequently become available including 
material that may come before it pursuant to the Mutual 
Legal Assistance requests sent by the JIT to different 
jurisdictions:-  
 
a) 
Reference against Mian Muhammad Nawaz 
Sharif (Respondent No. 1), Maryam Nawaz Sharif 
(Maryam Safdar) (Respondent No. 6), Hussain 
Nawaz Sharif (Respondent No. 7), Hassan Nawaz 
Sharif (Respondent No. 8) and Capt. (Retd) 
Muhammad Safdar (Respondent No. 9) relating to 
the Avenfield properties (Flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 
17-A Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, United 
Kingdom). In preparing and filing this Reference, 
the NAB shall also consider the material already 
collected during the course of investigations 
conducted earlier.  
 
b) 
Reference against respondents No. 1, 7 and 
8 regarding Azizia Steel Company and Hill Metal 
Establishment, as indicated above; 
 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
16
c) 
Reference against respondents No. 1, 7 and 
8 
regarding 
the 
Companies 
mentioned 
in 
paragraph 9 above; 
 
d) 
Reference against respondent No. 10 for 
possessing assets and funds beyond his known 
sources of income, as discussed in paragraph 9 
above; 
e) 
NAB shall also include in the proceedings all 
other persons including Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, 
Kashif Masood Qazi, Javaid Kiyani and Saeed 
Ahmed, who have any direct or indirect nexus or 
connection with the actions of respondents No. 1, 
6, 7, 8 and 10 leading to acquisition of assets and 
funds beyond their known sources of income; 
 
f) 
NAB may file supplementary Reference(s) if 
and when any other asset, which is not prima facie 
reasonably accounted for, is discovered;  
 
g)   
The Accountability Court shall proceed with 
and decide the aforesaid References within a 
period of six months from the date of filing such 
References; and  
h) 
In case the Accountability Court finds any 
deed, document or affidavit filed by or on behalf of 
the respondent(s) or any other person to be fake, 
false, forged or fabricated, it shall take appropriate 
action 
against 
the 
concerned 
person(s) 
in 
accordance with law. 
 
 
15. 
 
As a sequel to what has been discussed in paragraphs 13 
above, the following declaration and direction is issued:-  
i) 
It is hereby declared that having failed to disclose 
his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from 
Capital FZE, Jebel Ali, UAE in his nomination papers filed 
for the General Elections held in 2013 in terms of Section 
12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
17
(ROPA), and having furnished a false declaration under 
solemn affirmation respondent No. 1 Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of 
ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, he is disqualified to 
be a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament);  
  
ii) 
The Election Commission of Pakistan shall issue a 
notification 
disqualifying 
respondent 
No. 
1 
Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif from being a Member of the 
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) with immediate effect, 
whereafter he shall cease to be the Prime Minister of 
Pakistan; and 
 
iii) 
The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is 
required to take all necessary steps under the Constitution 
to ensure continuation of the democratic process.   
 
16. 
 
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan is requested to nominate 
an Hon’ble Judge of this Court to supervise and monitor implementation of this 
judgment in letter and spirit and oversee the proceedings conducted by the 
NAB and the Accountability Court in the above matters.  
17. 
 
This Court commends and appreciates the hard work and efforts 
made by Members of the JIT and their support and ancillary staff in preparing 
and filing a comprehensive and detailed Report as per our orders. Their tenure 
of service shall be safeguarded and protected and no adverse action of any 
nature including transfer and posting shall be taken against them without 
informing the monitoring Judge of this Court nominated by the Hon’ble Chief 
Justice of Pakistan.  
18. 
 
We also record our appreciation for the valuable assistance 
provided to us by Mr. Naeem Bokhari, ASC; Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC; Mr. 
Salman Akram Raja, ASC; Dr. Tariq Hassan, ASC; Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC; Sheikh 
Rasheed Ahmed, petitioner in person, Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Attorney-General 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
18
for Pakistan; Mr. Waqar Rana; Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan and 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, Acting Prosecutor-General, NAB and their respective teams.  
19. 
 
These petitions are thus disposed of in the terms mentioned 
above.   
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced on 28.07.2017 at Islamabad in open Court.  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
‘Approved For Reporting’ 
M. Azhar Malik  
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
C. M. A. NO. 4978 OF 2017 IN CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016 ETC.  
(Report by JIT).  
AND 
 
C. M. A. NO. 2939 OF 2017 IN CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016 ETC.  
 
Imran Ahmed Khan and others. 
 
                …Applicant(s) 
Versus 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,  
Prime Minister of Pakistan.  
 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2016.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi. 
 
 
                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,  
Prime Minister of Pakistan, etc. 
 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 30 OF 2016.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed. 
 
 
                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, 
 Justice and Parliamentary Division, etc. 
 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
AND 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 03 OF 2017.  
(Under Article 184 of the Constitution) 
 
Siraj-ul-Haq, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami, Pakistan.                …Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of  
Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others. 
      …Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
……………… 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
20
IN ATTENDANCE. 
(in Const. P. 29/2016). 
 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Syed Naeem Bokhari, ASC  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Fawad Hussain Ch., ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Faisal Fareed Hussain, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by :  
 
 
 
 
Barrister Maleeka Bokhari. 
 
 
 
 
Shahid Naseem Gondal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Kashif Nawaz Siddiqui, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
M. Imad Khan, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 1: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 2: 
 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, APGA. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. M. Fariid-ul-Hassan, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imran-ul-Haq, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ajmal Aziz, Spl. Prosecutor.  
 
For respdts. 3 to 5 : 
 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
 
For respdts. 6 to 9: 
 
Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Asad Ladha, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Ghulam Sabir Malik, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Usman Ali Bhoon, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
M. Shakeel Mughal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Aftab Zafar, Adv. 
 
For respdt. No. 10: 
 
Dr. Tariq Hassan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
Const. P. 30 of 2016.  
 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, (in person) 
 
For the respdts. 1 & 3: 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
21
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
For respdt. No. 2 : 
 
Mr. Akbar Tarar, APGA. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Qayyum, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Ch. M. Fariid-ul-Hassan, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imran-ul-Haq, Spl. Prosecutor. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ajmal Aziz, Spl. Prosecutor.  
 
For respdt. No. 4: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
Const. P. No. 03 of 2017. 
 
For the petitioner(s):  
Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Atif Ali Khan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Saifullah Gondal, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Sher Hamad Khan, Adv. 
 
For respdts. 1 to 3: 
 
Mr. M. Waqar Rana, Addl. A. G. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by : 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan. 
 
For respdt. No. 4: 
 
Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Amjad Pervaiz, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Saad Hashmi, Adv. 
 
 
 
 
Adnan Khawaja, Adv. 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
17th to 21st July, 2017. 
 
 
 
 
(Judgment Reserved).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
22
FINAL ORDER OF THE COURT 
 
 
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) shall within 
six weeks from the date of this judgment prepare and file before 
the Accountability Court, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, the following 
References, on the basis of the material collected and referred to 
by the Joint Investigating Team (JIT) in its report and such other 
material as may be available with the Federal Investigation Agency 
(FIA) and NAB having any nexus with assets mentioned below or 
which may subsequently become available including material that 
may come before it pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance 
requests sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions:-  
a) 
Reference against Mian Muhammad Nawaz 
Sharif, (respondents No. 1), Maryam Nawaz Sharif 
(Maryam Safdar), (Respondent No. 6), Hussain Nawaz 
Sharif (Respondent No. 7), Hassan Nawaz Sharif 
(Respondent No. 8) and Capt. (Retd). Muhammad 
Safdar (Respondent No. 9) relating to the Avenfield 
properties (Flats No. 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A Avenfield 
House, Park Lane, London, United Kingdom). In 
preparing and filing this Reference, the NAB shall also 
consider the material already collected during the 
course of investigations conducted earlier, as 
indicated in the detailed judgments; 
b) 
Reference against respondents No. 1, 7 and 8 
regarding Azizia Steel Company and Hill Metal 
Establishment, as indicated in the main judgment; 
c) 
Reference against respondents No. 1, 7 and 8 
regarding the Companies mentioned in paragraph 9 of 
the judgment unanimously rendered by Mr. Justice 
Ejaz Afzal Khan, Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mr. 
Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan; 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
23
d) 
Reference against respondent No. 10 for 
possessing assets and funds beyond his known 
sources of income, as discussed in paragraph 9 of the 
judgment unanimous rendered by Mr. Justice Ejaz 
Afzal Khan, Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed and Mr. 
Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan; 
e) 
NAB shall also include in the proceedings all 
other persons including Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, 
Kashif Masood Qazi, Javaid Kiyani and Saeed Ahmed, 
who have any direct or indirect nexus or connection 
with the actions of respondents No. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 
leading to acquisition of assets and funds beyond 
their known sources of income; 
f) 
NAB may file supplementary Reference(s) if 
and when any other asset, which is not prima facie 
reasonably accounted for, is discovered;  
g)   
The Accountability Court shall proceed with 
and decide the aforesaid References within a period 
of six months from the date of filing such References; 
and  
h) 
In case the Accountability Court finds any deed, 
document or affidavit filed by or on behalf of the 
respondent(s) or any other person(s) to be fake, false, 
forged or fabricated, it shall take appropriate action 
against the concerned person in accordance with law. 
 
 
2. 
 
It is hereby declared that having failed to disclose his 
un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from Capital FZE Jebel 
Ali, UAE in his nomination papers filed for the General Elections 
held in 2013 in terms of Section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of 
the People Act, 1976 (ROPA), and having furnished a false 
declaration under solemn affirmation respondent No. 1 Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif is not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
24
ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973 and therefore he is disqualified to be a Member 
of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). 
3. 
 
The Election Commission of Pakistan shall issue a 
notification disqualifying respondent No. 1 Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) with immediate effect, whereafter he shall cease to be 
the Prime Minister of Pakistan; 
4. 
 
The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is 
required to take all necessary steps under the Constitution to ensure 
continuation of the democratic process.   
5. 
 
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan is requested to 
nominate an Hon’ble Judge of this Court to supervise and monitor 
implementation of this judgment in letter and spirit and oversee the 
proceedings conducted by NAB and the Accountability Court in the above 
mentioned matters.  
6. 
 
This Court commends and appreciates the hard work and 
efforts made by Members of the JIT and their support and ancillary staff 
in preparing and filing a comprehensive and detailed Report as per our 
orders. Their tenure of service shall be safeguarded and protected and 
no adverse action of any nature including transfer and posting shall be 
taken against them without informing the monitoring Judge of this Court 
nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan.  
7. 
 
We also record our appreciation for the valuable assistance 
provided to us by Mr. Naeem Bokhari, ASC; Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. 
ASC., Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC, Khawaja Harris Ahmed, Sr. ASC; Mr. 
Const. Ps. No. 29-30/2016 & 03/2017. 
25
Salman Akram Raja, ASC; Dr. Tariq Hassan, ASC; Mr. Taufiq Asif, ASC; 
Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, petitioner in person, Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, 
Attorney-General for Pakistan; Mr. Waqar Rana; Additional Attorney- 
General for Pakistan, Mr. Waqas Qadeer Dar, Prosecutor-General, NAB 
and Mr. Akbar Tarar, Acting Prosecutor-General, NAB and their 
respective teams.  
8. 
 
These petitions are thus disposed of in the terms mentioned 
above.   
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
Announced on 28.07.2017  at Islamabad in open Court.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
‘Approved for Reporting’ 
 
