ISLAMABAD: National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq made it a point to decide, one way or the other, the high profile references he had been flooded with by different political parties within the stipulated time frame of thirty days.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had submitted two separate references against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and his Secretary General Jehangir Tareen; the PTI had filed a counter-petition against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his close relatives; and Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid had also moved against the premier.
First, the PML-N exercised this option on August 4 and August 18 instead of going to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The PTI followed it on August 15. Sheikh Rashid did not lag behind and filed his own plea a day later.
A total of eight references have been submitted to the Speaker, who had never received such a large number of similar petitions, invoking articles 62 and 63. Because of this deluge, Ayaz Sadiq is the focus of attention. Anger is bound to be poured on him by those who would not get the desired relief from him.
Under the Constitution, the Speaker has no power to disqualify any member of the National Assembly on such a reference. He has two options. One is to dismiss the plea, finding no substance in it at all. The second is to forward it to the ECP for adjudication through proper proceedings after hearing the parties involved in it.
In case of discharge of a petition by the Speaker on the ground that it lacks any meat, the aggrieved party can go to the high court against his determination. Conscious of the fact that his rulings, shooting down references, will be disputed before superior judicial forums, he is ensuring to give cogent reasons and grounds while dismissing them. In this connection, he has consulted with top lawyers, tax experts and reputed accountants.
If Ayaz Sadiq had just sat on such a plea and had not taken a decision within thirty days, the petition would have automatically stood referred to the ECP. Clause 2 of article 63 says if any question arises whether a lawmaker has become disqualified from being a legislator, the Speaker will, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer it to the ECP within thirty days, and if he fails to do so within this period, it will be deemed to have been referred to the ECP.
According to clause 3, the ECP will decide the question within ninety days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the legislator has become disqualified, he will cease to be a lawmaker and his seat shall become vacant.
Article 63 gives a long list of disqualifications that debar the contestants from being elected as federal or provincial legislator. Objections can be raised against them at the time of filing nomination papers by referring to these ineligibilities. But questions pointing out such disqualifications can also be highlighted at the appropriate forum anytime even after they have been elected. The present references agitated offshore companies, tax evasion and hidden assets of the rivals of their filers and claimed that they have become disqualified under articles 62 and 63.
The PTI said that it has attached with its plea all the documentary evidence of hiding of tax income and money laundering by the prime minister. The PML-N’s reference against Imran Khan stated that he set up an offshore company and did not even declare his assets and foreign property in his nomination papers. It said his ex-wife gifted the house to him in Bani Gala of Islamabad in 2005 whereas gift deeds are allowed only among blood relations.