ISLAMABAD, Aug 6: The parliament may witness unprecedented events over the next few days, which many believe would be quite stormy, as PPP-led coalition partners are gearing up to impeach President Pervez Musharraf.

Legal experts believe that the impeachment process will prove to be a unique learning experience for parliamentarians and constitutional experts alike.

“It will be interesting … if initiated, the process would give rise to many questions because there is no precedent for impeaching the president in Pakistan,” said an eminent constitutional expert.

He said that once the charges had been framed, the president would be provided an opportunity to defend his actions – by either personally appearing before a joint parliamentary session or nominating someone to appear on his behalf.

According to him, the absence of a judicial precedent could impede the president’s ability to nominate a lawyer or someone from outside parliament to defend himself, like former US president Bill Clinton.

The process, he said, could take months as the parliament would thoroughly discuss the allegations, or it could empower some other institution to conduct the inquiry.

Disputing this point of view, another authority on legal affairs said that during the joint sitting, parliamentarians could do nothing more than speaking out in favour of the process.

According to him, the president could be removed from office only if a two-thirds majority in parliament voted in favour of the impeachment motion.

He said there were three grounds for the president to be impeached – misconduct, incapacitation or violation of the Constitution.

Article 47, which deals with the removal or the impeachment of the president, says: “… The president may … be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeachment on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.”

“Not less than one-half of the total membership of either house may give to the speaker of the National Assembly or … the chairman (of the Senate) written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of, or … to impeach, the president, and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or the charge against him.

“If (such) a notice … is received by the chairman, he shall transmit it forthwith to the speaker.”

It also stipulates the National Assembly speaker to provide “a copy of the notice” to the president within three days of its receipt and summon “a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than 14 days after the receipt of the notice”.

The joint sitting, it said, might itself investigate or “cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded”.

It entitles the president “to appear and be represented during the investigation … and before the joint sitting”.

“If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the parliament declaring that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution.”

Dr Sher Afgan thought in the absence of a precedent, rules for the joint sitting of parliament were sufficient for the president’s impeachment.

However, he said, the coalition partners would “never succeed because they are not serious and there are differences among them”.

“Besides, the question will arise then who will be the next president – whether Nawaz Sharif, who has been disqualified or Asif Zardari, who has been accused of corruption, although he has been cleared through the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance.”