CRITICS of the Supreme Court verdict disqualifying the former prime minister for life from parliament and from party office tend to focus on its apparently narrow and technical reasoning. They contend that a failure to disclose “receivables” that were never received can hardly confirm a lack of honesty and reliability. They also note that other far more serious violations alleged by the petitioners and included in the JIT report were not even mentioned in the verdict as reasons for disqualification. This has raised many questions, both legal and political.

Among them is why wasn’t the full investigative process completed before rendering first a split verdict and now a final unanimous verdict? This is said to be unprecedented and to impact negatively on the fairness of the verdict. If the accountability court after investigating and examining the references decides not to prosecute the prime minister, will he remain disqualified for life on the basis of a ‘technical’ violation? Was a life ban even consistent with existing law? If not, can a full bench review of the Supreme Court reverse the verdict of the five-member bench? What would be the political and law and order implications of such a development, especially in an election year? Would the Supreme Court have covered itself in glory or embarrassment?

Defenders of the Supreme Court verdict argue that the prime minister’s admission that he failed to disclose ‘receivables’ from Capital FZE was not a ‘minor technicality’. It was a clear violation of the Representative of People Act (ROPA) of 1976 and as such it also attracted constitutional Articles 62 and 63. However politically controversial these constitutional articles may be, members of parliament have been unseated by the ECP because of their violation.

The basis for the disqualification of the PM may have been narrow but it was legally sufficient.

Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the JIT had overstepped its authority and accordingly its report should not be considered. The court, however, decided that “a prima facie triable case” had been made out against the respondents, including the prime minister, with regard to 16 listed assets. The JIT report will, accordingly, have to be taken into consideration by NAB in preparing and filing its references to the accountability court within six weeks.

NAB will be supervised and monitored in this process by the court because of the compromised credibility of the institution and its chairman who, according to one of the justices, was “indifferent” and “unwilling to perform his part”. This dereliction of duty by NAB necessitated the establishment of the JIT. The accountability court will decide upon the references (including the contents of the JIT report) within six months. In the light of its decision it may recommend regular trial proceedings against some or all of the respondents.

The mere fact that the court unanimously decided the prime minister was neither honest nor reliable mandated his immediate disqualification. Also, he could not stay on as prime minister in view of the risk of his subverting the implementation of the verdict.

There were initial differences among the justices on disqualifying the prime minister without further investigation and collection of evidence. But with the JIT’s uncovering of the prime minister’s association with Capital FZE and his admission regarding receivables, and given that violations of ROPA 1976 and Article 62 and 63 are not ‘minor technicalities’, the differences with regard to the immediate disqualification of the prime minister were bridged.

When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged on April 4, 1979, a judicial travesty of justice was perpetrated. The former US attorney general, Ramsay Clark, described the execution of ZAB as “judicial murder”. However, many of ZAB’s enemies appallingly concluded that even if legal justice was denied him, at least poetic justice was meted out because he got what he deserved!

There are no parallels between the judicial disqualification of Nawaz Sharif and the judicial assassination of ZAB. He was physically eliminated by a weak, complicit and divided Supreme Court at the behest of fearful military usurpers. Nawaz Sharif has been politically eliminated by an independent and transparent judicial process and a verdict with which one might differ, but cannot responsibly condemn as vindictive or a travesty.

One critic of the verdict alleges the Supreme Court opted for the view of Shakespeare’s Bassanio to “do a little wrong” in order to “do a great right.” Actually, the supreme judiciary has done a great right without doing any wrong, even if it has narrowed the judicial basis of its verdict to ensure unanimity. But the narrow basis for the disqualification of the prime minister does not call its legitimacy into question. The basis may have been narrow but it was legally sufficient.

Moreover, through references of more serious charges to accountability and trial courts the legal basis for disqualification, and possibly worse, is likely to broaden significantly. The state of governance in the country was not made a basis for the verdict. Nor was it ignored. In fact, the Supreme Court has acted with great caution, deliberation, foresight and wisdom. Nevertheless, we have now entered a period of great political uncertainty.

The ousted prime minister has chosen his even more controversial brother as his successor, and his brother has nominated his son, Hamza, as his successor! Pliant, complicit and corrupt parliaments are expected to rubber stamp these dynastic decisions. The Punjab chief minister and his son are involved in some of the 16 references that the Supreme Court has directed the NAB to refer to accountability courts for possible trials. There will be other investigations also in which licence for political interference and manipulation will not exist. Accordingly, there is a real possibility that Shahbaz Sharif and his son will also be disqualified from party and public office.

What would this entail for the PML-N? What would be the impact on the politics of Pakistan? Can the PTI take advantage of this golden opportunity to win the elections without selling its soul? Can it shake Punjab out of its low-level expectations trap?                                  

Winter may continue for a while. But spring need not be far behind. 

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2017