While some are celebrating the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as action against corruption and a step in favour of accountability in the country, others have asked if this is truly the case. The use of Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution to disqualify Nawaz Sharif is one of the themes dominating debate in the wake of the SC verdict. This is the first time this particular clause has been invoked, although Yousuf Raza Gilani was removed on the basis of Article 63(1)(g), a less controversial subsection of the two articles. Article 62(1)(f) has become so contentious because of its lack of clarity. It states that an individual will only be qualified to serve in parliament if “he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law.” It was one of many insertions made to the constitution by Ziaul Haq to ensure that any candidates not amenable to the military dictator's 'world view' were immediately disqualified. So the articles were added to the constitution for a specific reason. They weakened politicians. Since then, there have been occasional efforts to repeal the clause, most recently by the PPP as part of its 18th Amendment but they have come to naught. Ironically, it was the PML-N which opposed the removal of the clause, believing it was a ploy by the PPP to protect Asif Zardari.
A precedent has now been set that may be followed in future judgments, and many observers in the media and the legal community are of the view that dangerous doors have been opened and it has become easier to destabilise any democratic and elected government and leadership. Even some sitting members of the Supreme Court have in the past cautioned against using the articles. Leading lawyers and political commentators have also asked if it is justified or proper to use the vaguely worded clauses and unclear and undefined parameters for ‘sadaqat’ and ‘amanat’ to unseat a prime minister. After all, they point out, none of the charges of massive corruption that brought Nawaz Sharif to the court has been proven. He has been disqualified for failing to disclose “un-withdrawn receivables from Capital FZE, UAE” in his 2013 nomination papers. Since that kind of problem – whether deliberate or accidental – is now covered by Article 62, theoretically and logically speaking, there are few in parliament who will be safe.
Asfandyar Wali, leader of the Awami National Party, has said that if the article were used against all legislators the National Assembly would soon be empty. Most of us would agree that this is probably true. The points have also been made that the vague criterion being relevant only to politicians and parliament and not to other institutions is itself a problem and that this has led to a ceding of political power by parliament. Many politicians and commentators have rightly seen here a failure of our politicians to resolve problems that rightly belong in the political/parliamentary sphere. Now, with Nawaz Sharif having followed the verdict, there have been suggestions that it might be a good time to revisit the clauses imposed by a military dictator and seek, if nothing else, to at least clarify them. But for this, our politicians and leaders will have to rise above the myopic opportunism that has often proved to be their undoing.
