Nawaz pushed out of the picture

• SC says person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 cannot head a political party
• Court annuls all decisions taken by Nawaz as PML-N president, including nomination of Senate candidates
• CJP Nisar says judges respect country’s leadership but are not bound to give explanations

ISLAMABAD: In another major blow to the political career of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday ruled that a person disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan cannot head a party, making Nawaz ineligible to lead the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, was hearing the case challenging the Elections Act 2017, that had paved the way for the deposed premier to head the party despite his disqualification under Article 62 (I)(f) in the Panama Papers case.

The SC verdict also annulled the decisions taken by Nawaz Sharif in the capacity of the party head, including the nominations of the Senate candidates recently approved by the latter.

The verdict may not affect the PML-N’s registration as a party; however, decisions taken by Nawaz will be reversed, including the tickets issued by him for the Senate polls, and that a new schedule may have to be announced for Senate elections, a former chairman of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) said.

VERDICT:

The judgement reads: “Under Article 63-A of the Constitution, the position of a Party Head of a political party that has representation in, inter alia, the Parliament has a central role in the performance of duties by the Members of the Parliament. For rendering such a role, a Party Head must necessarily possess the qualifications and be free of the disqualifications contemplated in Articles 62 & 63 of the Constitution.

The Election Act, 2017 empowers a Party Head to perform multifarious functions that have direct nexus with the process of elections to the Parliament and to matters relating to the affairs of political parties having parliamentary presence.

Therefore for detailed reasons to be recorded later, these Constitutional Petitions are allowed. It is held and declared that provisions of Sections 203 and 232 of the Election Act, 2017 are liable to be read, construed and interpreted subject to the provisions of Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution.

As a consequence, it is declared that any person who suffers from lack of qualification under Article 62 or disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution is debarred from holding the position of ‘Party Head’ by whatever name called and prohibited from exercising any of the powers provided in Article 63-A of the Constitution, as ‘Party Head’ or any other power in the said capacity under any law, rule, regulation, statute, instrument or document of any political party. Such bar and prohibition shall commence from the date of disqualification and continue till such time that the lack of qualification/disqualification of such person continues in terms of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.”

WEDNESDAY’S HEARING:

Over the course of the hearing, the additional attorney general (AAG), Rana Waqar, while referring to Article 17 of the Constitution, told the apex court that the second clause of the article specifically gives citizens the right to form or join a political party.

In a rebuttal to the AAG, Barrister Farogh Naseem said that the Article 17 (2) is “subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan”.

He had opposed Nawaz’s elevation as the party head despite being disqualified by the court to hold a public office, saying that “whoever violates Articles 62 and 63 must not be allowed to head a party as it is a matter of public leadership”.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Babar Awan had also expressed reservations over the nomination of the PML-N Senate’s candidates by Nawaz Sharif, saying a disqualified person was handing out Senate tickets.

CJP Nisar also replied to the prime minister’s address in parliament on Monday, saying that the courts had no reason to use words like thief.

He said that the country’s leadership was respectable; however, he went on to add that he doesn’t “owe anyone any explanations”.

After the culmination of the arguments, the court reserved its judgement and announced that “they [the bench] will reassemble at 4:30 pm [Wednesday] to confirm whether the short order shall be issued on February 21 or later”.

BACKGROUND:

Following Nawaz’s disqualification as prime minister in July in the Panama Papers case, the ruling party had managed to amend the constitution to allow the former premier to retain his presidency of the PML-N.

As a result, the Elections Act 2017 was passed by parliament bringing Nawaz back as the party president despite his disqualification.

Subsequently, the law was challenged by PTI chief Imran Khan, Awami Muslim League (AML) chief Sheikh Rashid, and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) among others.

The petitions filed in the apex court stated that Nawaz’s appointment as party president is in direct violation of Article 5 of the Political Parties Order 2002 and Article 17 of the Constitution.

On January 1, the Supreme Court (SC) declared the petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017 maintainable.

After hearing preliminary arguments from petitioners, the apex court bench had issued notices to Sharif, the PML-N and secretaries of the ECP, NA, and Senate.

However, Nawaz had informed the court that he would not attend the proceedings pertaining to the Elections Act 2017.

On Feb 6, AML chief’s counsel Farogh Naseem had said that the act was passed only 17 days after Nawaz’s disqualification, which indicated its mala fide intent.

When the CJP asked how the appointment of a disqualified person as party chief contradicts the Constitution, he had said that according to Article 63 A, important powers were vested in the office of party chief, including the disqualification of a legislator belonging to their party.

During the hearing, the CJP had observed that the purpose of the legislation seemed to be to reduce the effect of disqualification.

On February 8, the court had observed whether a person being party head can run affairs from jail or not.

“Can a person who ridicules the judiciary be allowed to become a party head subsequently controlling legislative and executive affairs,” the CJP questioned as he referred to Article 5 of the Constitution.

On February 9, the CJP had stated that the apex court was not limiting its review of the Elections Act 2017 to Nawaz Sharif alone, and would take a holistic view of the legislation to ascertain its implications.

During the hearings, the petitioners had maintained that there was no way a person disqualified by the apex court could become a political party chief. To this, the CJP reminded him that the new law [Elections Act 2017] passed by parliament could allow any convicted person to assume the position of political party head.

On February 15, CJP Nisar had said that he would not accept a ‘crook’ heading a political party and ruling the country, and prayed to the Almighty not to let that happen.

Presenting his arguments, defence counsel Salman Akram Raja had said that a convict can only be punished for the offence he has committed but he does not get stripped of his other rights.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that “a corrupt party leader corrupts the entire structure of the party”, as he questioned the disqualified person’s moral authority to issue the Senate tickets, in an apparent reference to Nawaz Sharif.

Arguing the party head’s right to issue Senate tickets despite disqualification, the defence counsel had said the issuance of Senate tickets by a disqualified individual does not corrupt the entire party, adding that the article only bars an individual from being an MP, and has nothing against a disqualified individual heading the party.