Full of questions

For a judgment that is so sweeping in its effects – forcing the removal of a sitting prime minister – it seems it was based on very narrow grounds. This is the conclusion that many legal commentators seem to have reached after former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification. The biggest question remains the criterion used for the disqualification. Article 62(1)(f) was invoked because Nawaz Sharif failed to declare his un-withdrawn salary of AED 10,000 dirhams from Capital FZE in his 2013 nomination papers. Essentially, a declared billionaire has been disqualified for not declaring a non-receivable income of a few hundred thousand rupees. Interestingly, there has also been debate over whether non-receivable incomes even fall under the definition of salary used under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Any punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed and in this case there are questions over whether that standard was met. The original charges against Sharif and his children were of a much more serious nature; and none of them has been proven. Also controversial is the fact that the judgment was rendered by a five-member bench even though only three of the judges heard the evidence about Nawaz’s salary in the UAE. Moreover, legal commentators have also made the point that since the constitution does not bar the prime minister from holding another office of profit, disqualification over his omission regarding his salary is a narrow and rather severe reading of the law. The use of such an open criterion to disqualify a parliamentarian should also be treated with caution by those who are committed to parliamentary politics.

The lingering questions about the judgment and what it means for the future have led many to highlight the importance of the verdict being reviewed by a larger bench – full court – of the Supreme Court, which could help clear up questions about the evidence in the case and perhaps even look at the performance of the controversial Joint Investigation Team. It goes without saying that a verdict that has such extreme and far-reaching implications needs to be above reproach. It is unquestionable that there is a need for across-the-board accountability in Pakistan for all public officials. But we seem to instead be in a murky situation where almost all parliamentarians could simply stand disqualified without substantial charges having been proven against them. In light of the many legal debates that have arisen due to the former prime minister’s disqualification, it would further elevate the stature of our honourable judiciary if a full-court review of the judgment were to be undertaken.