Only months after he was disqualified from holding public office, Mian Nawaz Sharif has also been barred by the Supreme Court of Pakistan from leading his own party. The SC invalidating amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, which allowed Nawaz Sharif to remain leader of the PML-N, is sure to raise a host of legal and political questions. For many, the verdict shows that a pro-active SC has now impinged on legislative territory. According to this view, a legitimate parliament passed a law that had previously been on the books before being removed by Musharraf, and so there is little justification for declaring it unconstitutional. That the judgment relies on the controversial ‘sadiq and ameen’ clauses of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution makes it even more controversial. Essentially, the SC has now ruled that internal positions within political parties are now subject to the same rules as those holding elected political office.
The sweeping nature of the verdict, which nullifies all actions taken by Nawaz as party chief since his disqualification last July, could lead to further destabilisation and uncertainty and runs contrary to almost any case that legal experts are able to quote. Decisions taken by judges in the time before they were removed, by interim governments that were later disbanded, by prime ministers who were removed or by dictators who were toppled, were permitted to stand simply to avoid complete chaos. Legal experts have pointed to the cases of people such as Abdul Hameed Dogar and Pervez Musharraf, both of whom had their positions declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court but did not have any of their judgments and actions voided. The retrospective clause, which is being commented on widely, means that Nawaz Sharif’s nominations for Senate seats have been declared void too. In an emergency meeting, the ECP has declared the PML-N’s Senate candidates independent, and has said that the Senate elections will proceed on time. But are we really clear if those nominated will be able to run as independents without complications – with the possibility that even these can be challenged in court? The question would normally have been nonsensical. But the truth is that, with the word ‘unprecedented’ having become the new normal in our legal and consequently political spheres, only expecting the absurd has started making more sense. In addition, those Nawaz Sharif named to run for by-elections in Chakwal and Lodhran, with both seats claimed by the PML-N, fall under shadow.
Such a swift, convenient and controversial undoing of electoral exercises is always problematic and right now we seem to be facing a legal sea of questions which even the top experts in the country appear unable to answer. There is also uncertainty over the period of the disqualification, with the SC having reserved its decision on this. If the ban on holding public office is a lifetime one, then it can be assumed Nawaz Sharif will also be unable to lead his party for the same period. However, one thing is clear: the Nawaz narrative of victimhood and there being designs to hound him out of power will now be further fuelled. Which is why, politically, the verdict could end up helping Nawaz Sharif more than it hurts him. His fiery rallies and the party’s performance in the Lodhran by-election show that there may already be a backlash against Nawaz’s opponents.
That all the legal problems Nawaz has faced are essentially because he possessed an iqama and received a salary that he never withdrew has been a matter of raging controversy ever since the ‘Panama’ judgment. One criticism has been that the punishments handed down to him are not proportionate to the wrongdoing he is accused of. The Panama judgment had little to do with Panama Papers and the technicality on which it stands, which many experts found irrelevant to the case, is not its strength but its weakness. This is something that has been acknowledged even by the Sharifs’ greatest enemy. For commentators who choose to base themselves on law, history and sense – both common and not so common – the question will be: should the extremely controversial disqualification on so weak and technical a basis lead to so much chaos? It is also worth noting an attempt was made to decide this matter within parliament. Since opposition political parties did not see parliament ousting Nawaz Sharif in this manner, identical petitions from at least three parties, the PTI, the PPP and the AML, were placed before the court. It is on these petitions that the SC has ruled. What does it reveal, notably about the PPP which has suffered much in the past, when our politicians act in this manner? Then there is talk of differences, both within the Sharif family and the PML-N, which still persists and which may not be entirely without foundation. If there is to be a split within the Sharif family and defections in and from the PML-N, one would think now is the time for them to happen. But, as things stand at the moment, Nawaz has yet to cede an inch of political territory.