Why Articles 62 & 63 need to go

“Clause (f) of Article 62 of the Constitution provides a feast of legal obscurities… (They) relate to a man’s state of mind and cannot be properly encompassed… why have such requirements in… the Constitution which cannot even be defined.”

These words were said by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, the Supreme Court Justice who headed the five-judge bench that disqualified Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister of Pakistan for breaching the same clause.

There, of course, is no paradox in a justice triggering a breach of an article they mightn’t approve of themselves. For, the judges are there to interpret the law as it stands, and any amendments – or lack thereof – are up to the lawmakers.

However, Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification has reinitiated debate over Articles 62 and 63 of Pakistan’s Constitution. It has prompted all kinds of reactions, from multiple institutions, many of whom have interests in maintaining the status quo vis-à-vis Article 62 (f) in the Constitution – known commonly as the ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ clause.

The clause was introduced under the Zia-ul-Haq regime as part of the Islamisation that the legal system underwent under the Islamist military dictator.

The clause reads: “A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless, he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, sadiq and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law”

The two clauses preceding 62 (f) set up what ‘Sadiq aur Ameen’ is supposed to mean. They disqualify a member of the parliament unless, “he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions” and “has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins”.

There is nothing wrong with expecting one’s elected leaders to be honest and of good character – but how do you define, and quantify, these intangible characteristics?

Furthermore, by introducing “Islamic injunctions”, “duties prescribed by Islam,” and “sins”, it is evident that the aforementioned definitions are supposed to be interpreted as per religious guidelines. And we all know that in over 1400 years of Islamic history, there is no common interpretation of most terms that everyone would agree upon let alone those ideas that are subjective, even outside the ideological limitations.

Critics of these articles, which at some point in time has included just about every leader not belonging to an Islamist party, say that these clauses have been deliberately added to the Constitution as a tool of disqualification.

For, of course, it would be hard to find a person who has never sinned or fills all the requirements of honesty as per even the most lenient interpretations of Islam – especially in the world of politics.

This is why Nawaz Sharif’s ouster is being dubbed a “judicial coup”. After all, despite the mountains of allegations against the former Prime Minister, and his family, that the apex court took the flimsy evidence of a 10,000 dirhams’ worth of receivables to disqualify him over the Sadiq and Ameen clause, does add fuel to the fire.

But Imran Khan has ensured that whatever the critique of the verdict, which he is rightly treating as a personal success, it doesn’t transform into a revamp of the mechanism that removed Nawaz. This has meant that he has been staunchly defending Articles 62 and 63, despite criticising it on record in interviews with the Western media.

Khan says Article 62 and 63 should remain, “even if he’s disqualified over it.” One can only say this if one is sure that the clause won’t be used against him – which only reaffirms the criticism over the Supreme Court verdict and the institutional overlapping that might’ve resulted in Nawaz Sharif’s dismissal – or if one is the epitome of piety.

It’s obvious what Khan feels, even if erroneously.

Even so, regardless of the veracity of the “judicial coup” or the religious blackmailing that generates inertia in the much needed revamp, Pakistan needs to get rid of Articles 62 and 63.

It is simply because, even if one buys the claim that the insertion of these sections had completely noble intentions, and that they have never been abused, it is obvious that the guidelines for its misuse are written within the clause… between the lines.

It is a shame that the politicians who are deepest inside danger zone, have staunchly defended the Articles when in opposition. This is the case with the current opposition, and that’s exactly what Nawaz Sharif did when he wasn’t in the government.