The journey post Panama Papers judgment (Judgment), from bringing Article 62 & 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution) in public domain is quite preposterous and deplorable. Members of Parliament have managed to snuggle out of their basic responsibility of deliverance and have brought the debate of being ‘sagacious’ and ‘righteous’ to streets. Ms Ayesha Gulalai’s recent outrage of levelling serious allegations of harassment against Imran Khan is an apt reflection of how the parliamentarians are taking the debate to a mundane level, not realising that only a declaration and/or conviction by a court of law, as opposed to a perception, is capable of disqualifying a member assembly under Article 62 & 63 of the Constitution.
Parliamentarians cannot be treated as ordinary citizens as the Constitutions requires them to adhere to a higher standard. Article 62 requires them to be ‘sagacious’ and ‘righteous’ which is why the allegations levelled by Miss Gulalai cannot be left hanging in the loose air. Now, that she appears to have allegedly shown these messages to a senior journalist the situation becomes a little different. Imran Khan’s response to Gulalai’s allegations with respect to the alleged text messages was not convincing at all because there wasn’t any. The most disturbing aspect of the whole issue was Mr Naeem-ul-Haq’s tweet, whereby he clearly accepts not only messaging her but also defending his discussion on discussing a ‘marriage proposal’ with her. I find the whole discussion of this so-called marriage proposal quite disgusting and obnoxious. We all know what kind of marriage proposals Mr Haq must have tried discussing with her and others with a history of such allegations.
Harassment at workplace is quite common in Pakistan and, as a lawyer, who has had the opportunity to scrutinise the Protection of Women against Harassment at Workplace Act, 2012, while being member of the committee responsible for reforming the Act, I have observed that this law seems to be the most violated law in the country. Women in Pakistan don’t feel safe at their workplaces primarily because of such so called ‘marriage proposals’ that men are willing to extend every now and then. The backdrop of these proposals is merely to get intimate with the females, not realising that they are working not to attract such proposals but to earn livelihood by perusing their passion. Men will have to stop looking at women like commodities, which is not only mandated under the law and Constitution, but most importantly our religion where a female has been placed at an elevated stature.
Those suggesting that Gulalai should have left the party when she got the first text need to understand that Gulalai is completely within her rights to peruse her political aspirations in line with a political party’s manifesto without being a slave to party leader’s desires, whims and wishes. She can stay in party and object to or point out any unreasonable act of the party leader or any other person. Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI) may have been formed by Mr. Imran Khan but he himself is subservient to the constitution of the party and its discipline.
Ms Gulalai, as a parliamentarian, needed to be vary of a few things. She is no more associated with the PTI but chose to retain her national assembly seat on the pretext that that she is holding it on trust for the electorate. Ms Gulalai you are not an elected member and even otherwise if had left PTI, then under Article 63-A of the Constitution you were duty bound to vacate your seat. Ms Gulalai was selected as a member on the reserved seat for women therefore it becomes more difficult for her to retain the seat and continue. I fully conform to her sentiment and zeal to work effectively for the cause but she must understand that in doing so she is guided by the Constitution which prescribed a different mode.
Gulalai appears to have punched a lot of holes in her case, not because something never happened on the lines of her allegations, but because she cannot take a high moral ground on account of her decision to continue as a member despite the legal restrictions. It also does not mean that her case cannot be discussed on media and nothing should be done about it. The aspect of harassment, highlighted by her, certainly needs more probe. The Prime Minister has also taken up this issue in the Parliament and I expect concrete steps from him, soon instead of using it as a tool for replying to Imran Khan.