Barrister Naveed Qazi

The notion that disqualification of political candidates should solely rest with the electorate, not the judiciary or administration, resonates deeply with the spirit of democracy. At its core, democracy thrives on the principle of “power to the people,” where ultimate power resides with the citizens to choose their representatives. Excluding candidates through judicial or administrative mechanisms, regardless of the justifications, can undermine this fundamental principle.

Here’s why:

• Legitimacy of choice: Only the people, through the act of voting, can confer legitimacy upon their representatives. When someone is disqualified by external forces, it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the resulting power dynamics. The public’s ability to choose, even potentially choosing “flawed” candidates, is essential for democratic accountability.
• Erosion of trust: When an unelected body disqualifies a candidate, it can be seen as an attempt to manipulate the electoral process and erode public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the system. This can breed cynicism and disillusionment, weakening the very foundation of democratic participation.
• Misuse of power: The power to disqualify candidates carries the potential for abuse. In the hands of the judiciary or administration, it can be used to target political opponents or suppress dissent, violating basic democratic freedoms.
• Electability as a barometer: While concerns about candidate character or qualifications are valid, it is ultimately the people who should decide whether these factors disqualify a candidate from their representation. Their vote serves as a built-in mechanism for filtering out undesirable candidates, reflecting the collective wisdom and judgment of the electorate.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that some situations might necessitate external intervention. Gross ethical violations, criminal convictions, or proven incitement to violence might warrant disqualification to protect the integrity of the electoral process and the public good. In such cases, however, ensuring robust due process and transparency in disqualification procedures is crucial to uphold democratic principles.

Ultimately, ensuring a vibrant and participatory democracy demands recognizing the el

The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s recent verdict on lifetime disqualification for lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution has cast a powerful wave across the nation’s political landscape, stirring up a maelstrom of legal intricacies, political maneuverings, and public anticipation. Let’s dissect the key points of this controversial decision in greater detail, exploring its potential ramifications and the critical observations it elicits.

The crux of the majority verdict lies in its reinterpretation of Article 62(1)(f), a notoriously opaque clause demanding parliamentarians be “sadiq and ameen” (honest and righteous). The court, deviating from the precedent set in the 2018 Samiullah Baloch judgment, declared Article 62(1)(f) a non-self-executing provision, lacking defined procedures for disqualification. This effectively undoes the earlier interpretation of lifetime disqualification based on this article, opening a legal loophole and paving the way for the return of some previously disqualified figures, including the influential Nawaz Sharif.

The majority further underscored the potential violation of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 10A, which guarantees due process and fair trial. They contended that imposing lifetime disqualification without established procedures and judicial oversight undermines these fundamental rights, placing a potentially undue burden on individuals accused of transgressing Article 62(1)(f). This argument resonates with concerns about arbitrary disqualification practices and the need for a transparent, objective framework.

The verdict acknowledges the validity of the 2023 amendment to the Elections Act, which stipulates a five-year disqualification period for violations of Article 62(1)(f). This alignment with a recent legislative enactment strengthens the court’s position by demonstrating deference to established legal processes and a willingness to consider evolving political realities.

For figures like Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen, the verdict translates to a second chance. Their once-lifelong disqualifications are nullified, opening the door for potential participation in the upcoming elections. This undoubtedly alters the political landscape, reintroducing seasoned players with significant followings and potentially reshaping the electoral dynamics.

A Lone Voice of Dissent: Justice Afridi’s Stand

The legal tapestry woven by the majority verdict finds a dissenting thread in the opinion of Justice Afridi. He upholds the 2018 Samiullah Baloch judgment, arguing that lifetime disqualification remains valid while a court declaration regarding Article 62(1)(f) breach stands. This dissenting voice highlights the inherent complexity of the issue and the possibility of future legal challenges seeking to reinstate the Samiullah Baloch precedent.

The verdict has evoked diverse reactions, reflecting the multifaceted nature of Pakistani politics. The PML-N and IPP celebrate it as a victory for democracy and the vindication of Nawaz Sharif. The PPP, however, treads cautiously, acknowledging its potential positive influence while emphasizing the need for legal experts to decipher its nuances. This spectrum of reactions reflects the inherent uncertainty surrounding the verdict’s long-term implications and its potential impact on the upcoming elections.

The verdict’s reinterpretation of Article 62(1)(f) throws open the question of constitutional interpretation. The divergence from the 2018 judgment raises concerns about inconsistency in legal application and the potential for future confusion. This highlights the need for a clear and consistent approach to interpreting such crucial constitutional provisions.

Nawaz Sharif’s potential return to the political arena undoubtedly sends tremors through the Pakistani political landscape. His charisma and loyal following could significantly alter the course of the upcoming elections, reshaping alliances and voter preferences. This potential political earthquake necessitates careful analysis of its far-reaching consequences and the recalibration of strategies by various political actors.

A Shadow over the Rule of Law?

The dissenting opinion casts a shadow over the notion of judicial certainty, raising concerns about the possible disregard for established precedents. This could potentially undermine public trust in the legal system and lead to further legal complications. It is crucial to address these concerns and work towards upholding the rule of law, ensuring consistency and predictability in judicial decision-making.

The Supreme Court’s verdict on lifetime disqualification stands as a complex and consequential crossroads for Pakistani politics. Its ramifications extend far beyond individual politicians, impacting the very fabric of the nation’s legal and political systems. While certain aspects find clarity, others remain shrouded in uncertainty, awaiting future legal challenges and the ultimate choices made by the people.

Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com