Disqualification plea: SC to take up PM’s case on Dec 8
Chief justice to head seven-judge bench
ISLAMABAD:
A seven-judge larger bench of the apex court –headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk – will meet on December 8 to hear pleas seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, official sources told The Express Tribune.
The larger bench – constituted by the CJP a couple of days back – will adjudicate the questions, which were raised by a three-judge bench while hearing an appeal filed by Insaf Lawyers Forum’s senior vice president Gohar Nawaz Sindhu.
The petitioner contended that the prime minister had lied on the floor of the house, disgraced the army and therefore should be disqualified. Two other similar petitions were also filed in the apex court.
The SC bench – in its four-page written order issued on November 10 – had ordered the SC’s office to place the case file before the CJP and suggested that a larger bench might be formed “if the CJP considers it appropriate”.
The bench had also suggested to appoint Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) counsel Hamid Khan, Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) Senator Raza Rabbani and senior counsel Khawaja Haris as amicus curiae (friends of the court) to assist the court.
The bench had noted that the case raised important constitutional questions “involving continuity and health of the country’s system of elections, governance and adherence to the will of the people.”
The bench had put emphasis on laying 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, the bench had said, which court is competent to convict a parliamentarian and what should be the standard of proof required for making such a conviction.
The court had also suggested for the consideration of the larger bench that 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.
“The larger bench will also consider whether Article 66 (privileges of members) provides an absolute or a qualified privilege to parliamentarian for statements made on the floor of the two houses of parliament and provincial assemblies and also whether the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 override Article 66,” the order said.
It had also asked as to 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.
“It is of utmost importance that these questions be adjudicated,” the order said.
The bench had, however, observed that facts and circumstances emerging on record may prima facie not justify the acceptance of the writ petition, seeking the prime minister’s disqualification.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 30th, 2014.
A seven-judge larger bench of the apex court –headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk – will meet on December 8 to hear pleas seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, official sources told The Express Tribune.
The larger bench – constituted by the CJP a couple of days back – will adjudicate the questions, which were raised by a three-judge bench while hearing an appeal filed by Insaf Lawyers Forum’s senior vice president Gohar Nawaz Sindhu.
The petitioner contended that the prime minister had lied on the floor of the house, disgraced the army and therefore should be disqualified. Two other similar petitions were also filed in the apex court.
The SC bench – in its four-page written order issued on November 10 – had ordered the SC’s office to place the case file before the CJP and suggested that a larger bench might be formed “if the CJP considers it appropriate”.
The bench had also suggested to appoint Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) counsel Hamid Khan, Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) Senator Raza Rabbani and senior counsel Khawaja Haris as amicus curiae (friends of the court) to assist the court.
The bench had noted that the case raised important constitutional questions “involving continuity and health of the country’s system of elections, governance and adherence to the will of the people.”
The bench had put emphasis on laying 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, the bench had said, which court is competent to convict a parliamentarian and what should be the standard of proof required for making such a conviction.
The court had also suggested for the consideration of the larger bench that 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.
“The larger bench will also consider whether Article 66 (privileges of members) provides an absolute or a qualified privilege to parliamentarian for statements made on the floor of the two houses of parliament and provincial assemblies and also whether the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 override Article 66,” the order said.
It had also asked as to 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.
“It is of utmost importance that these questions be adjudicated,” the order said.
The bench had, however, observed that facts and circumstances emerging on record may prima facie not justify the acceptance of the writ petition, seeking the prime minister’s disqualification.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 30th, 2014.