What appears from the petition of the SCBA President to the Supreme Court is that there is a strong opinion in the lawyers top association against the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers which it considers to be against the norms of justice. In 2018, a five-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously held that disqualification handed down under Article 62-1(f) of the Constitution is for life. It was maintained in the SCBA’s plea that the Supreme Court exercises extraordinary and original constitutional jurisdiction but does not act as a trial court. Reportedly the SC office has returned the plea on the ground that the matter had already been resolved. Further, an objection was also raised on the locus standi of the petitioner. The lawyers’ body is now supposedly considering moving an appeal against the registrar’s objections. What turns out to be the fate of the petition remains to be seen.
Interestingly none of those who could be beneficiaries in case the SC reverses the lifelong ban is a party to the appeal. Estranged PTI leader Jahangir Tareen has in fact told media that the SCBA did not consult him before filing the petition. Both Nawaz Sharif and Tareen were disqualified for violation of Article 62(1)(f), which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be “sadiq and ameen” i.e., honest and righteous. There is a view that as the disqualification is based on a constitutional provision, this can only be undone through a constitutional amendment with retrospective effect. In fact both the PPP and PML(N) failed to make any move to strike down the constitutional provisions introduced by military dictator Ziaiul Haq with ulterior motives.
While the lawyers may try to get the lifelong disqualification changed to a time-specific punishment, it does not suit the politicians to seek the SC’s help by accepting the legality of the punishment while seeking reduction in sentence. The politicians have been rightly accused of resolving political differences through litigation rather than through mutual talks or recourse to Parliament. It has been rightly maintained that by going to the courts they surrender the Parliament’s turf to judiciary, thus becoming a party to the reduction of what happens to be their own sphere. While Parliament may take longer to reach a consensus, this will remove a permanent source of political destabilization and enhance its prestige.
