Elections Act 2017 passed to reduce effect of disqualification: CJP

Haseeb Bhatti Published February 6, 2018

Deliberating on the Elections Act 2017, which paved the way for disqualified prime minister Nawaz Sharif to regain presidency of the PML-N, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked a petitioner how having a party chief who is not eligible to contest elections would be in contradiction with the Constitution.

Barrister Farogh Naseem, who is representing opposition MNA Sheikh Rashid, told the court that the law was passed only 17 days after Sharif's disqualification by the Supreme Court in Panamagate case.

Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar — heading the three-member bench hearing the case — remarked that the purpose of the legislation seemed to be to reduce the effect of disqualification.

The court then asked Naseem to explain how the act was in contradiction with the Constitution.

The counsel replied that according to Article 63-A of the Constitution, important powers were vested in the office of party chief, including disqualification of a legislator belonging to their party. The party chief can also influence legislation and the election of a prime minister, Naseem argued.

He said that the act would allow someone declared untruthful and untrustworthy by the courts to influence parliamentary business.

"According to you, a party chief has considerably powers," Justice Nisar remarked. Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that according to the counsel, the party chief would be a kingmaker of sorts and an untrustworthy and untruthful person will control Sadiq (truthful) and Ameen (trustworthy) legislators.

Naseem agreed, arguing that such a situation would be untenable as it is the people's fundamental right to be represented by honest people.

He then began recalling that Nawaz Sharif was unable to provide a money trail in Panama Papers case, but was cut short by the CJP who said that the matter has been decided and should not be discussed further.

Pakistan

PML-N will make laws to stop PMs’ disqualification: Sharif

'I've been removed repeatedly but you keep bringing me back,' says re-elected PML-N head Nawaz

Qadri-led moot adds Nawaz Sharif to list of culprits

Pakman

Feb 06, 2018 04:12pm

Agreed how can dishonest and distrustful leaders represent the people of Pakistan until and unless people themselves choose to be represented in that way. If people decide to be represented by dishonest and distrustful leaders we will have no space for justice and abeyance of law would become a farce. Looking at the masses and gathering people of Pakistan much prefer to be governed by the corrupt.

Recommend 0

Dr. Doctor

Feb 06, 2018 04:21pm

Just like a PCO judge can continue to give good rulings, in a similar manner a disqualified person can lead his/her party. The only pre-condition from barring a disqualified party head from leading his/her party would be if a law is brought forward ensuring that ONLY the party head has to be the leader of the house. Meaning, other than a party's leader no one else can become the Prime Minister. In such a case a disqualified person cannot lead a party, otherwise, unfortunately, no matter what argument one brings in, one cannot prove anything against he constitution so easily. Unfortunately, the land of the pure, currently everyone is DIRECTLY involved in power politics. The establishment has backed off momentarily since Judiciary is holding on to their cards while the military has taken a step back since all's going in line with their plans while the ruling party is pulling all tricks up their sleeves to survive against these two strongholds and the entire combined opposition.

Recommend 0

CALGARY canada

Feb 06, 2018 05:19pm

@Dr. Doctor Couldn't agree more! You have highlighted the facts brilliantly.

Recommend 0

Shahid

Feb 06, 2018 05:22pm

Carefully reading Article 63 of the Constitution before commenting may help commentators opine meaningfully and also help readers to understand and appreciate nature of the issue at hand here.

Recommend 0

Javed

Feb 06, 2018 05:23pm

Election Act-2017 is against the spirit of the Constitution and should be struck down on that basis.

Recommend 0

stopstealing

Feb 06, 2018 05:55pm

@CALGARY canada i disagree and have no idea who he is writing about.

Recommend 0

Khanm

Feb 06, 2018 06:30pm

An untrustworthy and untruthful person will control trustworthy and truthful legislators, Justice Ijazul Ahsan says.very well.if they cannot be trusted in any affairs of the government medium or small ..how can they be trusted with major national security...they all need to be kicked out ...none of them ate trust worthy..bring poor, middle class in power ...cos they are in majority and that is real democracy...

Recommend 0

Riaz Ahmad

Feb 06, 2018 07:03pm

@Pakman You are spot on, people of Pakistan keep electing the corrupt election after election with the full knowledge that they are corrupt. It is the people who violate the constitution at its very root, if they elected honest representatives, the corrupt will not be able to violate or add amendments to the Constitution to protect themselves and their corruption. The democratic rot in Pakistan is knowingly and willingly brought about the people themselves.

Recommend 0

Dr. Doctor

Feb 06, 2018 07:37pm

@Khanm You make a good point but not all poor and many middle class are groomed and have the experiences of the honourable and respectable Krishna Kumari. @ Riaz Ahmed Agreed but the entire concept of elections in our country is flawed. If people for once think the elected representatives will be the ones who will be actively involved in law and policy making and for that saner, knowledgeable and sound people need to be elected, rather than the one who has promised them a road or a bag of rice in exchange for a vote, things would change ultimately. Considering the requirements alluded to in the preceding paragraph, there are barely a few that stand fit to qualify. For that purpose, since most laws have already been established, barring few by-laws which need occasional redress, the entire concept of democracy is flawed. Finalize the constitution, mark the laws that fall on a sliding-scale and keep them aside, and elect officials to work as true public servants.

Recommend 0

Dr. Doctor

Feb 06, 2018 07:48pm

Frankly, our main problem is 'not following the rules' which have already been laid out. Without going out of the way and derailing institutions, a gradual and persistent implementation of laws in every setting will bring about changes that will improve our country within a year. And for the ambiguous rules, for which enough clarity doesn't exist (especially 62 f 1), should be thrown back to the legislative assembly for redefining and clarification rather than different judges interpreting the law differently and produce more chaos and uncertainty. How difficult is that?

Recommend 0

Irfan Ali

Feb 06, 2018 08:27pm

@Pakman Primerly institutions are also representing the public, they have to guide the common man that who is honest ? Therefore, the Supreme court's decision, has valuable, would make opinion of the general public.

Recommend 0

Iqbal Ahmed

Feb 06, 2018 09:26pm

@Dr. Doctor Could not agree more.

Recommend 0