ISLAMABAD, Feb 9: A judge on the Supreme Court bench hearing the case of Sharif brothers’ electoral eligibility said on Monday he wondered how the proposer and seconder of a candidate could withdraw his candidature or drag him into the election arena against his will.

“The proposer and seconder are only entitled to represent the candidate till the filing of nomination papers and once the papers are submitted it is up to the candidate to defend his candidature or to withdraw while the proposer or the seconder has nothing to do with it,” Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali observed while referring to the right of the proposer and seconder to defend the main litigant candidate in his constant absence from the proceedings.

The three-member bench, including Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari and Justice Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, is hearing appeals of the federal government against the June 23, 2008, order of the Lahore High Court (LHC) disqualifying Nawaz Sharif from contesting a by-election for having been convicted in the plane conspiracy case.

Advocate Akram Sheikh, defending the locus standi (law on standing) of Mehr Zafar Iqbal, the proposer of Mr Sharif’s candidature, argued that both the proposer and seconder (Shakil Beg) had not come to knock at the doors of the apex court, rather they were defending the candidate (Mr Sharif) on behalf of their constituency.

The proposer and seconder were entitled to submit nomination papers of a candidate and every elector of a constituency had the right to defend his candidate, he argued.

He cited various cases from the American jurisprudence to establish that a candidate was merely a trustee whereas all powers and rights were bestowed to the voters/proposer and seconder and the elector being beneficiary had the right to defend the trustee. In case of trustee’s absence, the beneficiary could himself bring the claim, he argued.

“One has to draw a distinction between using litigation as a sword which is in the hands of Noor Elahi (a candidate) and Khurram Shah (a voter) and litigation as a shield to defend the right which was done by Mehar Zafar Iqbal and Shakil Beg,” he said.

Akram Sheikh said that since 1988, after the famous Benazir Bhutto case, Pakistan had undergone a revolution in the law of standing as the court had expanded this law by ushering in a new era of fundamental rights.

“The Benazir Bhutto case has opened up the closed doors to litigants not only for enforcement of their fundamental rights but also for other sections of society which are unwilling to approach the court or have no access at all,” he emphasised.

The counsel said that laws were of two kinds, one approved by parliament and the other laid by judges of the apex court. The Supreme Court, he said, was also empowered to make new law or reverse its earlier judgment.

At the fag-end of the proceedings, Advocate Ahmed Raza Qasuri, representing petitioners Khurram Shah and Noor Ellahi, accused the defenders of wasting court’s precious time and money of taxpayers who were paying for every minute of these proceedings by arguing altogether a new case on a right of rebuttal.

Citing relevant rules of conduct framed by the Supreme Judicial Council, he said it was not wise to take hours and hours and “we are not here to hear a lecture on jurisprudence”. They should come to the point straight.

Everyone was equal before the law, he said.

“If it was not the case of Sharif brothers, would the court have allowed ordinary case of let’s say Allah Ditta or Chiragh Din to take so much time?” he asked. Twenty working days of the court had been wasted just to establish the locus standi of prosper and seconder, he added.

Akram Sheikh accused Mr Qasuri of casting aspersion on the bench which was hearing the case patiently and said he was only using his right to rebuttal on points raised by Mr Qasuri.

The hearing was adjourned for Tuesday.