Several other politicians, most notably Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen, have received similar sentences in the recent past. It is also worth noting that, while Article 62(1-F) does not specify the length of disqualification for dishonesty, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including the current Chief Justice, unanimously ruled in 2018 that such ineligibility should be considered for life.
The debate over what it means to be “Sadiq” and “Ameen” has resurfaced following the incumbent Supreme Court chief justice’s recent description of Article 62(1-F) of the Constitution as “draconian.” CJ Umar Ata Bandial made the remark while reviewing a petition filed by former PTI senator Faisal Vawda, who was disqualified for life by the Election Commission earlier this year.
The ECP had labeled him “dishonest” after discovering that Mr. Vawda had concealed his dual nationality when filing his nomination papers for a National Assembly seat prior to the 2018 elections. Mr. Vawda has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the “lifetime” portion of the ECP’s disqualification ruling. He has argued that the court should take men’s rea—a lack of criminal intent—into account in his failure to disclose his US nationality. He has also argued that because the Supreme Court has already ruled that the ECP is not a court of law; the latter cannot issue a declaration disqualifying him under Article 62(1-F).
While the Supreme Court considers whether Mr. Vawda is honest or not, it is important to remember that he is not the only legislator facing a lifetime ban from politics under the law. Several other politicians, most notably Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen, have received similar sentences in the recent past. It is also worth noting that, while Article 62(1-F) does not specify the length of disqualification for dishonesty, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, including the current Chief Justice, unanimously ruled in 2018 that such ineligibility should be considered for life.
The Supreme Court Bar Association disagreed and filed an appeal with the Supreme Court earlier this year to prevent a lifetime ban. That petition, however, is still pending in the appeals process. It is hoped that the chief justice is now taking a fresh look at Article 62(1-F). He will find numerous compelling reasons to do so. Defining “sage, righteous, non-profligate, honest, and Ameen” in a way that is universally acceptable — as any law should be — has so far stumped some of our generation’s brightest legal minds.
However, this has not stopped the law from being used as a political death sentence for various leaders. As a result, some reconsideration of its application is required. However, it is ultimately up to parliament to replace the nebulous requirements outlined in Article 62(1-F) with something more concrete and quantifiable. When it ruled in 2018 that disqualification was for life, the Supreme Court stated that it was simply interpreting the law as it was. Instead of stumbling over the optics of touching Article 62(1-F), our lawmakers must stand firm and make any reasonable changes required for the sake of the political order’s stability and continuity.