Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has remarked that it is not that easy to disqualify someone for life.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by CJ Bandial, heard the plea filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Faisal Vawda against lifetime disqualification. Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad argued that his client neither hid facts nor was he dishonest.

“No one can be declared dishonest without examining the evidence and the declaration of Article 62(1)(f) can only be given by the court,” CJ Bandial remarked, adding that the apex court has set criteria in its judgments for the application of Article 62(1)(f).

“When did Faisal Vawda submit the nomination papers?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Vawda’s counsel, to which he replied that he submitted nomination papers on June 7, 2018, while scrutiny was conducted on the 18th of the same month.

“When did Faisal Vawda submit the affidavit?” asked Justice Mansoor. On June 11, replied the counsel and added that the returning officer was informed that Vawda had renounced his US citizenship.

“On which date did he go to the American Embassy to cancel his nationality?” asked Justice Aisha Malik.

Vawda’s counsel said that his client went to the US Embassy and said that he was renouncing his nationality.

“Did you go to the embassy and verbally tell them to cancel your passport?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked. To this, the counsel said, his client was not supposed to give proof of renouncing citizenship.

At this, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said, “You did not bother to conclude this issue before submitting the affidavit on June 11.”

“NADRA issued the certificate of renunciation US citizenship on May 29, 2018,” Wasim Sajjad said.

“How did NADRA issue the certificate when you did not go to the US Embassy for renunciation of US citizenship,” Justice Aisha Malik questioned.

Vawda’s counsel argued that the real question was the declaration of lifetime disqualification, which could not be given by the Election Commission of Pakistan.

CJ Bandial observed that no one could be declared dishonest without examining the evidence and that the declaration of Article 62(1)(f) could only be given by the court.

The court then adjourned the hearing till October 12.