Panama Papers Scandal: Is a salary &quot;withdrawn?&quot;
<p>The Prime Minister of Pakistan is facing an inquiry under a constitutional petition praying that the PM should be disqualified under sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution where a Member of the National Assembly must be, among other things, honest. Here is the full text of the April 20th judgement (which ruled 3-2 in favour of further investigation opposed to disqualification). <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P._29_2016.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P._29_2016.pdf</a></p>

<p>Further investigation, among many things, discovered that the Prime Minister had an employment visa in the UAE. On the visa application made by a UAE company he is a "marketing manager" and the chairman of a company (owned by his son) with a salary of 10,000AED.</p>

<p>The PM was required to disclose his income sources as "assets" on his election nomination papers. In a written reply to the Supreme Court, just after the Court has reserved its judgement, he says that he did not withdraw any salary and therefore was not required to disclose it.</p>

<p>None of the five judges have said many good things about the PM in their original judgement. However, the only power to disqualify the PM the Supreme Court has in this case is if they believe the PM was dishonest. The Court has already made it known that a criminal trial for corruption, forgery, fraud and perjury against the PM and family will follow but everyone (including the judges themselves) have reservations about the conduct of institutions that will eventually prosecute them.</p>

<p>The judges have already concluded that a false or missing declaration on the ECP form suggests dishonesty. Was the PM dishonest by not disclosing a salary that he was not withdrawing?</p>

<p>On the face of it, irrespective of if he receives payment or not, he is <em>entitled</em> to the salary. As such, it is an asset belonging to the PM and should have been disclosed.</p>

<p>Whether this is <em>dishonest</em> or not is for the court to decide. It could have been an honest mistake.</p>

<p>The verdict of the Supreme Court reaffirms what @Dale M has said.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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  to salaries and whether the salaries if not withdrawn being receivable as such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 
  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.”</p>
  
  <p>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
  99(1)(f) of the ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic
  Republic of Pakistan. </p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P._29_2016_28072016.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P._29_2016_28072016.pdf</a></p>

constitutional-law