In Islamabad, the Supreme Court (SC) continued considering several petitions to establish the duration of disqualification, and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that the highest court was seeking “clarity” on the matter in light of the upcoming February general elections in Pakistan.
Supreme Court Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Musarrat Hilali make up the seven-judge panel that is now deliberating the matter. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa of Pakistan is presiding over the bench.
Because of discrepancies between lower courts’ rulings and laws passed by lawmakers, the highest court has decided to step in and decide whether a politician should be disqualified for life or for the five years specified in the Election Act.
Article 62(1)f, which was added to the Constitution by Gen Ziaul Haq, the former military ruler, is the root cause of the disqualification dilemma. In the Panama Papers case, however, a larger bench of the Supreme Court permanently disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, elevating the issue to the forefront.
A five-year disqualification period was established under Article 62(1)(f) by a modification to Section 232 of the Election Act that was passed by parliament in June of last year. Now when the Supreme Court is about to decipher the situation, this legislative action further complicates it.
After assuming the rostrum, Advocate Khurram Raza questioned the proceedings’ maintainability as the hearing began today.
Nevertheless, the Chief Justice persisted with the primary line of inquiry concerning the length of disqualification and stated that, although Article 68 of the Constitution mentions disqualification, it is for a period of only five years. He went on to inquire as to where it was written that a lawmaker would be permanently barred from office.
“This court does not have the authority to do this. The essential question is that.
It seems strange to me that a civil offence carries a life sentence, yet a crime as serious as treason allows the offender to run for office again at any time. Justice Shah ruled that a person could run for office again after committing a heinous crime like murder, rape, or kidnapping.
While Justice Isa disagreed, stating that Islam does include the ideas of repentance and returning to the correct path, Advocate Raza argued that these arguments were contained in Islamic principles.
Additionally, he wanted to know if the disqualification clause was inserted into the Constitution by an autocrat. He went on to say that the constitutional amendment was passed under “gunpoint” and questioned how five judges could have more knowledge than parliament.
“No matter how much you despise the members of the assembly, they are our representatives,” the CJP declared, emphasising that the decision-making authority of a military ruler cannot be prioritised over that of lawmakers.
He insisted the court was seeking “clarity” to ensure returning officers understood the rules they must follow.
Taking the podium, advocate Usman Karim clarified that the requirements of saadiq and ameen did not pertain exclusively to Islam and that they equally apply to non-Muslims.
At this point, Justice Isa questioned whether non-Muslims are unable to be saadiq and ameen and pondered if these prerequisites were included to cause “confusion.”
After Justice Mandokhail questioned who had the authority to determine a person’s goodness, Advocate Karim said that only God could do so.
Since a statute was passed establishing five years, Justice Shah questioned how a lifelong exclusion could be relevant in the present day.
“The politicians are representatives of the people,” Justice Isa remarked, adding that dictators and politicians should not be considered equal. He went on to explain that dictators gain power by suspending and breaking the Constitution, rather than being elected by the people.
Next, the court broke for a little break. The SC-appointed amici Bhandari were summoned to the rostrum upon the resumption of the proceedings.
According to him, the returning officers were bound to apply whichever of the two precedents—the modified Elections Act or the Sammiullah case judgment—was most persuasive.
Noting that Article 63 imposed disqualification without specifying a time range, he brought attention to that fact. “The starting point is the historical context for Article 62(1)(f),” according to him.
Additionally, the amici pointed out that the 18th Amendment saw the replacement of Articles 62 and 63 by parliament. ““Secondly, Article 63(1)(g)(h)(i)(j) had time constraints imposed in them and they ranged from two to five years,” according to him.
Bhandari stated that, according to his interpretation of the 2018 ruling, the disqualification was indefinite rather than permanent.
He went on to say that the wording of Articles 62 and 63 was never modified by the parliament. According to the CJP, once the phrase of the oath was modified, the whole nation came to a halt. “Maybe that’s why they did not bother with it.”
The court then postponed the hearing till tomorrow at 9 a.m.
Prior proceedings
On Tuesday, during the case hearing, the seven-judge bench pondered why certain acts, such as high treason and murder, carried a five-year disqualification while others, according to assumed moral standards, a lifelong disqualification.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, a top lawyer defending Jahangir Tareen—who was also disqualified for life by the Supreme Court—and the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) both backed the five-year disqualification sentence.
Additionally, Khan brought up the fact that the Supreme Court had made two contradictory rulings. Without providing any explanation, he stated that the ruling from the first round of the Panama papers case was reversed in the second part. He went on to say that in the Faisal Vawda case, the judge had overturned the judgement to disqualify him for life.
In response to the attorneys’ arguments, the bench members posed a number of concerns concerning the length of time a person can be disqualified from running for office in the country, as well as moral standards and the qualifications necessary to do so.
There would be no further debate on the subject, the chief justice informed the court, because the lifelong disqualification had been eliminated by changing the statute and no one had disputed that change. In this regard, the AGP maintained that a fresh look at the rulings of the courts was required.
After adjourning the matter for further hearing to today, the court said that a decision would be rendered by January 11. On the next hearing date, the chief justice added, anyone who wanted to argue for the lifetime disqualification could do so in court.
In a subsequent written decision of the hearing, the court announced the appointment of Faisal Siddiqui, Uzair Bhandari, and Reema Umar as amici curiae. It went on to say that any prominent lawyer could offer advice to the court regarding the matter’s constitutionality and legality.
