The inevitable has happened for eleven members of Parliament fighting a losing battle over dual nationality in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Announcing its judgement on the case last Thursday, a three-member bench disqualified four legislators from the National Assembly and seven from provincial assemblies belonging to both the ruling coalition and the Opposition, under Article 63 (1)(c) of the Constitution read with section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951.
The much respected Chief of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim wasted no time to act on the SC order to de-notify the affected legislators immediately, saying he would not tolerate any dual national in the Parliament, and that if he finds more, he would proceed against them. He also disclosed that a week before the SC judgement, the ECP had approached the Senate and National Assembly secretariats with the request for the names of other legislators holding dual nationality, but that neither had responded. Interior Minister Rehman Malik facing legal proceedings for disqualification has also been held to have perjured himself before the court earlier and therefore attracting provisions of article 62(1)(f) although for now he retains his Senate seat as his issue has been sent to the Chairman Senate for further action. Case of the disqualified legislators and Malik have also been sent to competent courts for adjudication for penalties under the law to be imposed. According to Malik there are several other legislators having dual citizenship. To say the least, it is unfortunate that the parliamentary secretariats should hide their names which may invite judicial intervention, causing unnecessary controversy.
As for the verdict itself, the court has acted in letter and in spirit on the relevant section of Article-63 which says, "a person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) if ... (c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign state..." However, a case existed for giving the disqualified legislators the benefit of doubt on the basis of two extenuating circumstances: One, that the law has remained unimplemented for long. This is not the first time that dual nationality holders got elected to the assemblies. And second, the EC declaration forms for the candidates are rather ambiguous on the subject. They don't require a clear yes or no answer. Besides, not all prospective legislators are expected to be fully conversant with various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, it is quite possible that those who violated the said article may not have been aware of it at the election time.
The case of Interior Minister Rehman Malik is different. Much more serious consequences await his fate following the court observation that he could not be considered sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen. Notably, Article 62 (f) stipulates that a person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament unless "he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law." So far as false declaration is concerned, it falls within the definition of perjury, which is a grave offence. A former US president, Bill Clinton, had to face impeachment proceedings for having made a false statement on oath about his relationship with a White House internee, Monica Lewinsky. There is considerable unease, nonetheless, in civil society about this particular article, inserted in the Constitution by General Ziaul Haq's military regime, infamous for employing fake piety, to sideline his political opponents. Most of the attributes it contains can be highly subjective. Those sitting in the present Parliament have themselves to blame for not omitting these controversial conditions and qualifying it with the words 'there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law" instead. They had the opportunity to omit them during substitution deliberations on Article-62 as part of the 18th Amendment, but chose not to touch them. Irrespective of its implications for the present case, a fresh debate is in order so as to make necessary changes to this provision.