THE Supreme Court is presently seized of the case about the disqualification of Mr Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister on the ground that he allegedly made a false statement in parliament on Aug 29 that he had not asked the army chief to act as mediator, asking PTI and PAT to end their sit-ins.

It was, therefore, alleged that he is neither ‘sadiq’ nor ‘ameen’ according to Article 62 of the Constitution and thus deserves to be unseated. Justice Dost Mohammad Khan during the preliminary hearing had observed that the words sadiq and ameen were not defined in the Constitution and are needed to be interpreted.

These words roughly corresponded to the English words sagacious, righteous, and honest.

The matter is considered so grave that now it has been referred by the acting Chief Justice Jawad S. Khawaja to the chief justice for further disposal (through a larger bench). Justice Jawad S. Khawaja had initially heard the case during the absence of the chief justice who was out of country.

Irrespective of whether the words ‘sadiq’ and ‘ameen’ can be defined precisely, there is no need to waste much time on the semantics. Article 62 basically relates to the requirements of sadiq and ameen during the pre-election period, while Article 63 deals with the disqualification acquired by a member after his election.

These provisions are not interchangeable and deal with different situations or else there would have been only one Article. In the instant case Article 63 (1) (g) appears more germane to the issue which disqualifies a member on the ground of ‘morality’ or if he ‘defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces of Pakistan.’

In this case, Nawaz Sharif by exhorting the army chief to jump into the fray of power politics being exercised by Mr Imran Khan and Mr Tahirul Qadri through sit-ins did attempt to defame or ridicule the Pakistan Army and then denying making such a statement was nothing but an immoral act.

S.M. Anwar

Karachi

Published in Dawn, November 23th , 2014