Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Credit: Reuters Photo
Islamabad: A petition has been filed in Pakistan's Supreme Court against the dismissal of a plea seeking former prime minister Imran Khan’s disqualification for concealing his alleged daughter Tyrian White while submitting his nomination papers for the 2018 general elections.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) last month dismissed the petition.
The petition alleged that the 71-year-old Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party founder had not disclosed his alleged daughter — Tyrian White — in his nomination papers for contesting the 2018 general elections.
Khan's PTI party won the 2018 general elections, and the former cricketer-turned-politician served as the prime minister of Pakistan from August 2018 to April 2022.
The IHC rejected the petition after noting that a three-judge bench had previously dismissed it.
Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri read the opinion of the two judges given last year and ruled that the case has already been dismissed.
The petitioner, Mohammad Sajid, through his counsel Saad Mumtaz Hashmi, moved the Supreme Court on Saturday, pleading that the full bench of the IHC has erred in considering the concurring opinion of two of the three judges as court judgment.
According to the petitioner, Khan did not mention the existence of his alleged daughter, when he filed nomination papers to contest the election from the Mianwali constituency and only furnished the details of his spouse, Bushra Bibi, and two sons living abroad, namely Qasim Khan and Sulaiman Khan.
The petitioner said since Khan furnished a false affidavit, he was liable to be disqualified.
The petition pleaded that it was an undeniable fact that White, born on June 15, 1992, was the real daughter of Khan after her paternity was confirmed by the judicial record in the courts in California, the United States.
A single bench hearing the matter decided on Feb 2, 2023 that the case be heard by a full bench comprising three judges. After that, the matter was taken up by IHC Chief Justice (CJ) Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir. After the hearing, they reserved the judgment on March 30, 2023.
However, before the Chief Justice could have given his opinion, the concurring opinion of two other judges was uploaded on the IHC’s website mentioning that the petition was dismissed by a majority of two to one.
The CJ then ordered an inquiry besides ordering the removal of the concurring opinion of the two judges from the website, as it could not have been uploaded before the case was fixed for announcement of judgment.
Later on May 10, 2023, the CJ decided to recuse himself from hearing the case and directed that the “opinion of the two judges be sealed” and ordered that the matter be fixed before a full bench to “decide the case afresh”.
The petitioner claimed the petition was fixed before the IHC full bench on May 21, 2024, but the bench rather than hearing the case afresh dismissed the petition.
Challenging the dismissal of his petition instead of hearing it afresh, the petitioner argued that the opinion of two judges uploaded on the website did not constitute a judgment in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in several verdicts.
The IHC full bench was not bound by the concurring opinion of two judges given in the earlier round of hearing of the petition, he said.