Disqualification case: SC seeks transcript of PM’s speech
Nawaz denied govt had requested army chief for mediation in political crisis.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has observed that the petitioner — seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — has ‘locus standi’ for filing the plea in view of Article 62(f) of the Constitution.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, resumed on Wednesday the hearing of an appeal filed by Insaf Lawyers Forum’s Gohar Nawaz Sindhu against a verdict of Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his petition for disqualification of the PM last month.
It must be noted that similar petitions for disqualification of the prime minister were also directly filed in the apex court by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The petitioner claimed the PM had first asked the army chief General Raheel Sharif to act as a ‘mediator’ between the government and protesting parties – the PTI and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) – and to serve as a ‘guarantor’ to any agreement between the parties concerned. He alleged that the premier later lied in front of the parliament and denied that he had made any such request to the army chief.
During the hearing, the bench asked as to whether the micro-blogging of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) chief on Twitter could be accepted as an evidence in this case.
The DG ISPR had revealed in one of his tweets that the federal government had requested army chief to play his role to end the ongoing political impasse.
The court said it would also do a comparison between Article 63 and Article 69 of the Constitution to know which one holds superiority. Article 63 deals with the disqualification of a parliamentarian while the Article 69 says that proceedings of the parliament cannot be called into question in any court of law.
During the hearing, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that the scope of ‘locus standi’ was limited in 1960s but now it was expanded. “Prima facie, you have the locus standi to file this petition,” he told the petitioner.
Justice Khawaja said that their goal was to ascertain the truth in this matter, adding that parliamentarians should not tell a lie inside or outside the parliament.
“We have already buried the doctrine of necessity and it will never be resurrected in future. National decisions should not be taken behind closed doors,” he said. Justice Khawaja further observed that the Constitution demands that army and judiciary should not be defamed.
A member of the bench, Justice Dost Muhammad Khan asked if the Article 63 – which says ‘a person is not qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen – also applies to politicians, who make false claims during their election campaigns.
Justice Khan said the terms ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ were inserted in the Constitution by a usurper (Gen Ziaul Haq), who subverted the Constitution.
“Now the same person (Musharraf) is demanding for implementation of Article 62 ad 63 against parliamentarians,” he said. “Shouldn’t they also apply on him as he also retracted from his promise to shed his uniform,” the judge asked.
The bench also asked the petitioner to present the official transcript of the PM’s speech, wherein he had denied that the government had requested the army chief for mediation. The court said it would examine what words were used during the meeting between the prime minister and army chief and what words were uttered by prime minister during his speech.
The petitioner Gohar Nawaz Sindhu told the bench that he had moved an application in parliament secretariat to seek official transcript of the PM speech but had not received it yet.
He further stated that after passage of the 18th Amendment, the speaker National Assembly could not disqualify until the parliamentarian concerned was convicted by a court of law. The PTI leader’s counsel Irfan Qadir will start arguments in this matter next week.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 16th, 2014.
The Supreme Court has observed that the petitioner — seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif — has ‘locus standi’ for filing the plea in view of Article 62(f) of the Constitution.
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, resumed on Wednesday the hearing of an appeal filed by Insaf Lawyers Forum’s Gohar Nawaz Sindhu against a verdict of Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his petition for disqualification of the PM last month.
It must be noted that similar petitions for disqualification of the prime minister were also directly filed in the apex court by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The petitioner claimed the PM had first asked the army chief General Raheel Sharif to act as a ‘mediator’ between the government and protesting parties – the PTI and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) – and to serve as a ‘guarantor’ to any agreement between the parties concerned. He alleged that the premier later lied in front of the parliament and denied that he had made any such request to the army chief.
During the hearing, the bench asked as to whether the micro-blogging of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) chief on Twitter could be accepted as an evidence in this case.
The DG ISPR had revealed in one of his tweets that the federal government had requested army chief to play his role to end the ongoing political impasse.
The court said it would also do a comparison between Article 63 and Article 69 of the Constitution to know which one holds superiority. Article 63 deals with the disqualification of a parliamentarian while the Article 69 says that proceedings of the parliament cannot be called into question in any court of law.
During the hearing, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that the scope of ‘locus standi’ was limited in 1960s but now it was expanded. “Prima facie, you have the locus standi to file this petition,” he told the petitioner.
Justice Khawaja said that their goal was to ascertain the truth in this matter, adding that parliamentarians should not tell a lie inside or outside the parliament.
“We have already buried the doctrine of necessity and it will never be resurrected in future. National decisions should not be taken behind closed doors,” he said. Justice Khawaja further observed that the Constitution demands that army and judiciary should not be defamed.
A member of the bench, Justice Dost Muhammad Khan asked if the Article 63 – which says ‘a person is not qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen – also applies to politicians, who make false claims during their election campaigns.
Justice Khan said the terms ‘Sadiq and Ameen’ were inserted in the Constitution by a usurper (Gen Ziaul Haq), who subverted the Constitution.
“Now the same person (Musharraf) is demanding for implementation of Article 62 ad 63 against parliamentarians,” he said. “Shouldn’t they also apply on him as he also retracted from his promise to shed his uniform,” the judge asked.
The bench also asked the petitioner to present the official transcript of the PM’s speech, wherein he had denied that the government had requested the army chief for mediation. The court said it would examine what words were used during the meeting between the prime minister and army chief and what words were uttered by prime minister during his speech.
The petitioner Gohar Nawaz Sindhu told the bench that he had moved an application in parliament secretariat to seek official transcript of the PM speech but had not received it yet.
He further stated that after passage of the 18th Amendment, the speaker National Assembly could not disqualify until the parliamentarian concerned was convicted by a court of law. The PTI leader’s counsel Irfan Qadir will start arguments in this matter next week.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 16th, 2014.