Pakistan’s Supreme Court to decide disqualification period for MPs

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday continued its hearing to determine how long a lawmaker should remain disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Article 62(1)(f) was used last year to remove the head of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party, Nawaz Sharif, from his position as prime minister amid accusations of graft. Among other things, Sharif was accused of concealing undrawn receivable salary while submitting his nomination papers to the Election Commission of Pakistan ahead of the last general elections in 2013.
He was forced to resign on July 28, 2017, after the court’s decision cast doubt on his financial integrity. Now a five-member bench is seeking to clarify the disqualification law following 17 appeals against it.
Muneer A. Malik, former attorney general, and Barrister Ali Zafar were announced amicus curiae (friends of the court) by presiding judges to assist the bench with the case.
Malik argued that after the 18th Constitutional Amendment, the maximum disqualification period for an MP was changed to five years. He concluded his deliberation by saying that a lifelong disqualification violates basic human rights.
The objective of interpreting the article, under which another lawmaker, Jahangir Khan Tareen of opposition party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was also barred from politics and holding public office for life, is to ascertain the specific duration of the ban imposed.
It is a challenging issue that will have significant ramifications for Pakistani politics and the country’s national interests.
“A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of (Parliament) Majlis-e-Shoura unless he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and righteous, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law,” reads the text that specifies public office holders must be of unimpeachable character.
However, there is no clear definition given for the adjectives employed, including “sadiq” (honest) and “ameen” (righteous), nor any specification that the same requirements should be applicable to non-Muslims as well.
Advocate Babar Awan, representing a petitioner, said that an MP from any religion “should also possess good character.” Supporting the lifetime disqualification, he pleaded with the court to maintain the ban, though other lawyers opposed the idea when questioned by the judges.
The court had earlier summoned both Sharif and Tareen. Sharif was absent due to his attendance at the National Accountability Bureau for an ongoing trial against him.
Chief Justice Saqib Nisar issued another notice to Sharif to appear in court next Tuesday.
Sharif’s legal counsel Azam Tarar appeared in court on Wednesday following the warning and asked the judges for time to prepare arguments, since the outcome will determine the fate of his client’s political career. The bench granted the lawyer’s request, giving him until next week to prepare.
The court had issued a public notice asking any person the judgment may affect to file an appeal and take part in the deliberations, failing which the court will resume its proceedings without the petitioner.
The case is potentially hugely significant for all lawmakers who have been barred from contesting elections for life. Some legal experts argue that a fixed duration of disqualification must be set.
“Declaring perpetual or permanent disqualification is very difficult if a person has rectified the error, mended his ways, changed his nature, or otherwise removed the objection,” said Syed Mohammed Tayyab, Supreme Court advocate and former president of the Islamabad Bar Association.
Speaking to Arab News, he stated that, in his view, the law should only be used to disqualify a politician “for a single term, not a lifetime.”
Barrister Humayun Chatha, however, while he stressed that the ambiguity of the current text required amendment, said he was wary of using constitutional legislation as a tool of “unbridled power in the hands of judges, which can cause harm to democratic institutions.”