Many MPs’ fate hangs in balance

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) that hands down on Friday its keenly-awaited judgment determining the length of ineligibility of lawmakers disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution two months after reserving it may choose one of at least four apparent options.

The most high profile disqualified legislator is ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif whose fate will also be decided in regard to the duration of ineligibility as he was also ousted under this very provision for not declaring in his 2013 nomination papers the unwithdrawn salary from his son’s Dubai-based company. The second important figure to benefit or lose due to the verdict is senior Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen.

One choice before the five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar will be to leave the matter to Parliament to decide the time of disqualification by amending the Constitution. However, it will not be possible for the legislature to do so now due to the prevailing highly charged political environment and because the National Assembly has just a few weeks’ life left to live.

The second option before the court is to fix the disqualification period - one, two, three, four or five years or more. Another choice will be to impose life ban on the ineligible MPs on contesting elections. The fourth choice will be to declare just one-time bar or unseating meaning that a person disqualified can immediately vie for an elected office as the Supreme Court had decided in the case of Justice (R) Iftikhar Cheema belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Days after his ouster, he had jumped in the electoral fray in the by-election for the same Wazirabad seat and had won once again.

Article 62(1(f) is silent on the duration of disqualification of an MP for not being honest and righteous. This silence has led constitutional experts to give clashing opinions on such period, which are mostly based on assumptions and presumptions.

In its judgment, the justices’ panel will interpret the provision as it happens when the constitutional or legal provisions are ambiguous. The previous conflicting judgments given by the Supreme Court on the same question will become irrelevant after the instant bench will announce its ruling. Some petitioners argued that the disqualification time should be five years. By asserting this, they in fact had a vested interest – they have already lived five years as ineligible – so that they instantly become qualified. However, such a determination will strike Nawaz Sharif and Tareen as they are the latest entries in this club. The deposed premier was disqualified on July 28 last while the PTI leader was declared ineligible in mid-December.

Those who stand for perennial ban under Article 62(1(f) ignore the fact that even a convicted thief, dacoit, rapist, murderer, child abuser and traitor is qualified to become an MP after five years of completion of his jail sentence. But politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Tareen, punished for much lesser crime of mis-declaration, can’t be.

An apparent purpose of taking up a slew of petitions, around seventeen, some of them pending since long, by the top court was to conclusively decide the matter before the approaching general elections so that the disqualified lawmakers know whether they can stand in the polls or not.

Nawaz Sharif had preferred not to become party to these proceedings despite general notices by the court. It appeared that the court wanted to hear his viewpoint on the issue. While refusing to join the hearings, he had stated that he did not want to prejudice the case of other appellants. However, Tareen had quickly become part of proceedings after his ineligibility.

The bench had reserved its verdict on February 14. Before that, the chief justice had declared at a public function that he had urged the judges to release their verdicts within a maximum of one month. The primary objective behind his assertion was to get the decisions delivered without delay.