Asif’s case

The Supreme Court has overturned the Islamabad High Court verdict banning Khawaja Asif from holding public office for life. According to Asif’s lawyer, the most immediate impact of the decision is that it allows the former foreign minister to contest the July 25 elections. It also provides a rare bit of good news for the PML-N, which has had to deal not only with the lifetime ban handed down to Nawaz Sharif but a raft of defections from members before the coming general elections. Asif is one of the most important leaders of the PML-N, and something of a firebrand. His disqualification had given the PTI ammunition to use against the PML-N, and restricted Asif’s own public appearances. Now he will probably be able to rejoin the campaign trail, something will be an undoubted fillip to his party. It would not be appropriate for now to comment on the Supreme Court decision since it has not released its full judgement or explained its reasoning for the reversal. But the Supreme Court did explain that it was passing judgment only on the lifetime ban given to Asif under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution. The court specifically said that it was not ruling on whether Asif was negligent in paying taxes on his foreign income or declaring that income to the authorities. This means Asif could still face challenges when he files his nomination papers with the ECP – although if he has failed to declare foreign income he could now take advantage of the new tax amnesty law to start with a clean slate.

This reversal will start a fresh debate on the use and misuse of Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution. So far it has been invoked to disqualify three parliamentarians for life – Nawaz Sharif, Jehangir Tareen and Khawaja Asif. With the Asif verdict now overturned, there is reason to believe that there will be further calls to set more precise parameters of when the article applies to alleged misconduct by parliamentarians. Many legal and political commentators have pointed out that the imprecise wording of the article could affect just about every politician. There have been suggestions that the new National Assembly, once it is convened after the elections, may want to consider passing an amendment that would add some clarity to the article. While any wrongdoing by public figures should be punished, the standards that are applied do need to be transparent.