Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Hearing a set of petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017, which paved way for disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif to regain presidency of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar on Tuesday observed that the law was, prima facie, introduced to reduce the effect of disqualification.

He, however, asked the counsels for the petitioners to advance arguments on the point that a disqualified person, who is not eligible to contest elections, cannot head a political party under the constitution.

The CJP was heading a three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan. The bench is hearing 16 almost identical petitions against the Elections Act, 2017.

Resuming his arguments, Barrister Farogh Naseem, counsel for Awami Muslim League chief MNA Sheikh Rasheed, contended that the law was passed just after 17 days of disqualification of Nawaz Sharif by the Supreme Court on July 28, 2017, in the Panama Papers case, which carried a mala fide intent. The chief justice then observed that no law can be struck down on the grounds that it carried mala fide intent.

To a court query that how the Elections Act, 2017 was in contradiction with the constitution, the counsel stated that according to Article 63-A of the constitution, important powers were vested in the office of party chief. He said the party chief enjoys a lot of powers and he can even influence the legislation and election of the prime minister, adding that he can disqualify any lawmaker of his party if he gives any statement against the policy of his party or does any act which is contrary to the party’s policy.

He said the act allows a disqualified person who is declared ‘untruthful and untrustworthy’ by the courts to influence even the parliamentary business. He stated that the law is a mockery of the constitution as well as the apex court verdict in the Panama Paper case.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan then noted that the arguments of the counsel indicate that the party chief can be dubbed as ‘kingmaker’.

He, however, questioned that how an untrustworthy and untruthful person can control the truthful and trustworthy legislators of his party. He said Nawaz Sharif could not provide his money trail to the court in the Panama Papers case. The chief justice stopped him saying when the matter has been decided, it should not be discussed further, adding that the arguments should focus the law point only.

The counsel then argued that it is the fundamental right of the people to be represented by the honest people. When the counsel stated that the court has not declared Nawaz Sharif as ‘sadiq and ameen’, the chief justice asked him that from where he had taken this word and noted that the word ‘sadiq and ameen’ was only for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). He said the word ’emaandar’ has been used in the constitution.

During the hearing, the chief justice noted that if Nawaz Sharif would not defend himself in the case, the court would hear other parties and decide the matter. He, however, said that Sharif could become a party in the matter at any stage. At the onset of hearing, advocate Salman Akram Raja told the court that he will advance arguments in the case for PML-N. Advocate Kamran Murtaza requested the court to allow some time to file written reply of the National Assembly.

The court called the Leader of the House in Senate Raja Zafarul Haq on the rostrum and asked him that who will represent Nawaz Sharif in the case, as he was a respondent in the case an d he had also received the court notice. Sardar Latif Khosa, counsel for PPP, which is also one of the petitioners in the case, contended before the court that the Elections Bill was passed when his party was on walkout. The chief justice said it would have to see whether the court could annul the legislation. He said whatever the decision comes, it would have effects on the future decisions of the parliament.

Meanwhile, Azam Nazeer Tarar, advocate-on-record, told the court that Nawaz Sharif was not interested to engage counsel in this matter, as he thinks that his party elected him as the head and it is a matter of PML-N and parliament to defend this law.

The court then held that it would proceed ex parte against Sharif in the case. However, the court observed that he could join the proceedings at any time if he desired so. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).

Published in Daily Times, February 7^th 2018.