Interior Minister Rehman Malik seems to have landed himself in a world of trouble.
On one hand, he will face a reference from the Senate chairman. On the other, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) will initiate legal action against him, for which a meeting has been convened on Monday.
If that’s not enough, the interior minister’s frustrated comments were taken up by the Supreme Court (SC) on Saturday. The apex court asked Malik to prove his statement to the media that, despite the disqualification of at least 11 dual nationality holding parliamentarians, many continue to hold seats in assemblies.
Taking notice of Malik’s statement, the court dispatched a letter asking him to furnish details regarding his stance to allow it deal with all dual nationality holders – putting the interior minister in the unenviable position of effectively having to officially testify against fellow parliamentarians.
The SC sent the same directions to reporter Umer Cheema, who broke a story regarding Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid MNA Begum Shehnaz Sheikh’s dual nationality.
The apex court letter outlined references to news stories where Malik is reported to have said that several dual national legislators continued holding seats in assemblies and that he will produce evidence in this regard if asked.
The SC also dispatched a letter to Begum Shehnaz – who allegedly became an Australian national 15 years ago – asking her to confirm reports circulating about her dual nationality before September 27.
On his own part, Malik faces the threat of legal action due to submitting a false declaration regarding his dual national status while filing nomination papers for Senate elections in 2008. In a short order issued recently, the SC observed the interior minister could not be considered sagacious, righteous and honest under section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976. On September 20, some 11 lawmakers, from both, parliament and provincial assemblies, were shown the door by the apex court for holding dual nationalities. Given the specific nature of Malik’s case, the SC will likely decide his fate next month.
Malik did indeed renounce his UK nationality – but only well after the SC had taken up the case in 2012, as opposed to his declaration and sworn statement that he had renounced it years ago, before taking oath as a senator.
Former law minister Dr Khalid Ranjha said that since Malik filed false evidence before the court, he might be treated under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). “If someone is found guilty of submitting false evidence, under section 193 of PPC he or she could be punished with imprisonment which may extend to seven years,” he said.
The SC short order referred Malik’s case to the Senate chairman under Article 63(2) of the Constitution, in view of section 91(1)(f) of the Act of 1976, which states that a person cannot be qualified to be elected or chosen as an assembly member unless he or she is sagacious, righteous, honest and non-profligate.
In light of these directions, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) will institute legal proceedings against all disqualified members of the Senate and national and provincial assemblies, including Malik, on Monday, a senior official told The Express Tribune.
Talking to The Express Tribune, Malik’s cousel Anwar Mansoor Khan maintained the court only made an observation which will be considered by the Senate chairman. “The Senate chairman is the ultimate authority to decide my client’s fate now,” he added. Former lawmakers believe this will be a test case for Senate Chairman Syed Nayyar Bokhari. He faces the same situation his National Assembly counterpart Dr Fehmida Mirza faced during former premier Yousaf Raza Gilani’s contempt case.
When Mirza refused to initiate a reference against Gilani, the SC disqualified him while ignoring her ruling. Following the SC’s order, the Senate chairman is bound to send a letter to ECP within 30 days. Beyond that, CEC Justice (retd) Fakharuddin G Ibrahim will decide Malik’s fate.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 23rd, 2012.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Troubleshooter or troublemaker?
the supreme court judges are watching too much television. they should focus on their jobs of providing justice to the poor litigants.