Dual nationality case: PPP MPA says loyal to Pakistan despite US citizenship

MPA Amna Buttar submits concise statement in SC.


Azam Khan June 23, 2012

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) MPA Dr Amna Buttar prayed to the Supreme Court on Saturday that despite her US citizenship, she was loyal towards Pakistan.

Dr Buttar, who is also the sister of the Supreme Court’s recently retired judge Justice Javed Buttar, asked the court to dismiss the petitions that questioned her loyalty towards her motherland-Pakistan.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, recently suspended Dr Buttar’s Punjab Assembly membership for holding American citizenship. Dr Buttar, in response, submitted a concise statement to defend her loyalty towards Pakistan. She also submitted her detailed CV, achievements and her voice against drone attacks in Pakistan.

Dr Buttar also highlighted her family’s political struggle and role in the struggle for the independence of judiciary in Pakistan. She said that being a student of medical sciences, she obtained the US citizenship in 1992 but she is a Pakistani national by birth.

She further told the court that being the founder of Asian American Network Against Abuse, she led protests against General Pervez Musharraf in New York City and Washington DC subsequently. She and her family in Pakistan were harassed and threatened by military establishment through Brigadier Ijaz Shah, Dr Buttar added.

Dr Buttar, in her concise statement, stated that Brigadier Shah personally met her in 2005 and made a direct death threat to her. But, she said, these tactics and harassment only strengthened her resolve to continue being the voice for the oppressed in Pakistan. Dr Buttar also told the court that in April 2007, she participated in the lawyers rally in Islamabad and was targeted and brutally assaulted by the Elite Police inside the premises of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

She said that her name was highlighted in the list of dual nationality holders with prejudice to target her. She told the court that she has not violated the Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and Article 63(1)(c) is not applicable at this stage because no objections were raised at the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers and her election was never challenged before any election tribunal.

Although, the Supreme Court seeks proper arrangements for overseas Pakistanis to vote in general elections, this week it made it clear that it would not allow dual nationals to be a part of the assemblies citing constitutional restraints.

Senator Wasim Sajjad, the counsel for MNA Farah Naz Ispahani (who holds citizenship of both Pakistan and the US) told the bench that it was unrealistic to question someone’s loyalty on the basis of nationalities they held and to suspend their assembly membership.

The court has suspended memberships of Ispahani and then federal interior minister Rehman Malik for holding the US and UK nationalities respectively. Ispahani’s lawyer asked the court to refer this matter to the parliament or interpret the Constitution in the supreme national interest.

The court will take up the issue on June 25.

COMMENTS (32)

ishrat salim | 11 years ago | Reply To all those people especially Mirza Sb.....who are in support of dual nationals...how wud you guys feel if an Indian holding Pakistani passport etc;is yr PM ? wud you like it ? we are in such a sensitive geo-political surrounding that dual nationals in high positions are security nightmare...
Nasir Khan | 11 years ago | Reply

Who is loyal to this land and who is not, no one knows. A person having dual nationality might be much more loyal to this land compared to a single nationality holder. Single nationality is not a guarantee of loyalty; similarly a dual nationality does not mean treachery or disloyalty. We are not only irrational but nincompoop. If loyalty is the benchmark then I ask the people arguing against loyalty of dual nationals, what of those Pakistanis who willingly and in their good conscience conspire against or attack its armed forces? Should we draw a list of these people and withdraw their right to vote? Would you allow the state to bar Baluchis fighting for their rights from contesting elections simply because they are perceived as a threat? Where do we draw the line Sir? Taliban or terrorists involved in anti-state activities are they loyal to the state simply because they live here? This is not a sound argument, particularly in our case, a Country plagued with terrorism, no security to life or property, corruption, lack of opportunities, where parents were forced to send their children to foreign countries so they could be secure. Change the constitution if necessary, nobody has the right to challenge loyalty of those who wish to serve their people.I remember the example of Muhamad Sacirbey, Bosnian holding American citizenship represented his native country as their UN Representative in extremely difficult times and then went on to become their Foreign Minister

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ