body: 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). <http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/Const.P._29_2016.pdf>
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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.
  
  
  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?
  
  
  
title: Panama Papers Scandal: Is a salary "withdrawn?"