SC fixes Dec 8 for hearing of PM disqualification case

A seven-judge bench, headed and constituted by the CJ, will hear the premier's disqualification case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Saturday fixed December 8 for the hearing of a plea seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk constituted a seven-judge bench -- headed by the CJ himself -- to hear the premier’s disqualification case.

The bench will adjudicate the questions raised by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja in its four-page written order, while hearing senior vice president of the Insaaf Lawyers wing Gohar Nawaz Sindhu’s appeal against the Lahore High Court’s September 2, 2014, order to reject the writ petition.

Earlier, while hearing the case in Quetta on November 10, Justice Khawaja had ordered the office to place the case file before the chief justice – who would constitute a larger bench if considered appropriate -- also suggesting the appointment of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Vice President Hamid Khan, Pakistan Peoples Party's Senator Raza Rabbani and senior counsel Khawaja Haris as amicus curaie (friends of the court) to assist the court, since important constitutional questions involving the continuity and the health of the country’s system of elections, governance and adherence to the will of the people have arisen.

The bench had also formulated a number of questions for consideration, with an emphasis to lay down a law suggesting what should be the minimum threshold for attracting Articles 62(1 f) and 63(1 g) of the Constitution, requiring a conviction by a court against a member of Parliament.

It is important to determine which court is competent to convict a parliamentarian, and what the standard of proof required for making such convictions should be, the bench said.

The court had also suggested, for the consideration of the larger bench, the constitutional provisions of eligibility for elected office requiring an elected person to be “honest” and “ameen” have to be given meaning because these terms have to be interpreted as they constitute a substantive part of the Constitution, and it was the people of Pakistan who have, through the Constitution, mandated and were entitled to ensure that members of Parliament elected by them fulfill the eligibility criteria and qualifications given in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

The larger bench will also consider whether Article 66 (privileges of members) provides an absolute or a qualified privilege to parliamentarians for statements made on the floor of the two houses of Parliament and provincial assemblies, as well as whether the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 override Article 66.

And what is the effect of the material changes which have been made in Articles 62 and 63 by virtue of the 18th amendment passed in April, 2010, the court had suggested.

The bench had held that it was of utmost importance that these questions be adjudicated, because the challenges as to qualifications or disqualifications, eligibility of elected members and also elections and by-elections were a recurring phenomenon.

Further, it said it was necessary for courts, returning officers and election tribunals to receive guidelines for the same reason. Otherwise, there is a likelihood of a lack of uniformity in the decisions made by different courts, returning officers and election tribunals -- bearing in mind that there are a total of 1,070 constituencies, and an average of 10 candidates will be contesting elections and will be submitting their nomination papers for scrutiny.

The bench, while issuing a 4-page written order, has observed that facts and circumstances emerging on record may prima facie not justify the acceptance of the writ petition seeking the disqualification of the prime minister.

“It may well be that facts and circumstances emerging on record may prima facie not justify the acceptance of the writ petition, but it is in our view still essential to lay down the law ad parameters of the constitutional provisions and to outline on principle what would be the minimum threshold for attracting the provisions of the constitution,” said the written order.