Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa stated on Tuesday that the Supreme Court (SC) aims to swiftly conclude proceedings regarding the issue of lifetime disqualification to avoid any confusion for returning officers (ROs), with the next general elections scheduled to be held in a little over a month.
The CJP made these comments during a session of the seven-member larger bench, which included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Musarrat Hilali. The hearing, available for live viewing on the SC’s website, began with Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan expressing his desire for the court to revisit the law due to “certain contradictions” in a previous judgment by Samiullah Baloch.
While supporting the amendment limiting disqualification to five years, the AGP urged the court to review its earlier ruling on Nawaz’s lifetime disqualification, referencing a SC order from December 11, 2023.
During the proceedings, the CJP inquired about the respondents in favour of lifetime disqualification, receiving affirmative responses from petitioner Sanaullah Baloch, advocate Khurram Raza, and Usman Karim.
However, Mir Badshah Hussain Qaiserani’s – on whose petition the issue of disqualification arose last month – counsel Saqib Jillani opposed it, aligning with the AGP’s position. Jillani stated his support for the existing law legislated by the federal government. CJP Isa then questioned the stance of provincial advocate generals, and they also indicated their support for the AGP’s argument. The AGP read out Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, emphasising their relevance when nomination papers are submitted.
The CJP observed that while some conditions were straightforward, others, such as those related to character, were more challenging to fulfil. “There is also the provision about having good knowledge about Islam. I don’t know if anyone would be able to pass this test,” he added. He noted that the Constitution does not specify the period of disqualification, it was a gap filled by the courts.
Justice Shah raised the question of whether the period in the Elections Act was more significant than that in the Constitution. He highlighted the interpretation of Article 63, suggesting that serious crimes like murder and treason allowed election participation after a certain period, while an ordinary crime could result in permanent disqualification.
CJP Isa pointed out that the amendment to the Elections Act had not been challenged and could be followed. Awan expressed concerns that such an action might give the impression of legislation overriding the SC’s decision.
The discussion delved into the differences between Articles 62 and 63, with CJP Isa highlighting the challenge of determining someone’s character. He noted the absence of a specific period of disqualification in Article 62, a detail addressed by the court. The AGP argued that the declaration of lifetime disqualification remained in place as long as judicial decisions existed. The CJP emphasised the need for forgiveness, acknowledging human imperfections. The hearing touched upon various aspects, including the insertion of clauses into Article 62 in 1985 and questions about the character of historical figures. Later, the hearing was adjourned until January 4, with indications that the case might be concluded in the next proceedings.
At the end of the hearing, the CJP stated that the apex court wished to conclude the case on January 11, emphasising the court’s focus on the constitutionality and legality of the matter.
The inconsistency between judicial decisions and parliamentary legislation regarding the duration of disqualification under Article 62(1)f has prompted the apex court to intervene and determine whether the disqualification of a lawmaker should be for a lifetime or for five years, as stipulated by parliament. The disqualification conundrum stems from the addition of Article 62(1)f to the Constitution by former military ruler Gen Ziaul Haq through the 8th Amendment. Despite being part of the Constitution for the past 38 years, no elected government has been able to abrogate this provision. The issue gained prominence when a larger bench of the Supreme Court, in the Panama Papers case, disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif under Article 62(1)(f). The court ruled that the disqualification would be for life, a decision reaffirmed by a subsequent bench.
In June of the previous year, parliament introduced an amendment to the Section 232 of the Election Act, setting the period of disqualification to five years under Article 62(1)(f). This legislative move adds a layer of complexity to the matter that the Supreme Court is now set to unravel. Meanwhile, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for the restoration of the 10-year disqualification period of the convict for the coming general elections. The NAB’s intra-court appeal sought suspension of the court’s single bench decision, which lowered disqualification period to five years.
Nguồn bài viết : da88
