Sans-Sharif!

The Supreme Court on Friday disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding public office in a landmark decision on the Panama Papers case.

It is true that Sharif has been stripped of the prime ministership on quite narrow legal grounds. If the democratic project is to be sustained and strengthened, the rules of the system must be clear, fair and transparent.

Although, Sharif family's legal team's strategy  has been quite troubling in this case. They only focused in subsequent hearing, on discrediting the report, and raising questions about the impartiality and capability of the six men who had comprised the JIT, instead coming up with a clear or transparent explanation. Instead, 'Sans-Sharif' and #FontGate scandals further tarnished their defense.

Nevertheless, we were hoping that the Supreme Court would deliver a well-argued and well-reasoned judgement that would create a desirable and easily implementable legal precedent. Instead, the one that now holds sway in the application of disqualification criteria for elected officials is very vague. What is the scope of Article 62(1)(f) and has it been properly determined by the bench? What constitutes a misdeclaration in a candidate’s nomination forms that can trigger disqualification?

The Supreme Court was in a Catch-22 situation; it had lowered the threshold for ineligibility of elected members to such an extent. It seems following this judgement; one hundred per cent of this country’s elected representatives face at least some uncertainty about their legitimate qualifications to hold public office. Doesn’t that sound like a fiasco…for a democracy!

Bushra
2005 hours
Sunday 30 July 2017