LAHORE, July 7: Federal Law Minister Dr Khalid Ranjha says that both former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif cannot contest the elections as they have been convicted by courts.
Talking to Dawn here on Sunday, he said: “Ms Bhutto is a convict and so is Mr Sharif.” Under Article 63 of the Constitution, he added, both were disqualified to contest the elections.
About their eligibility to head their respective parties, Ranjha said under the Political Parties Act any person who did not qualify to become a member of the legislature was also not eligible to become office-bearer of his/her party.
Without elaborating it further, he said the PPP and the PML(N) should judge for themselves whether they should be led by Bhutto and Sharif or there was a need for the change of leadership.
Asked whether Mian Shahbaz Sharif was qualified to take part in the elections in case he came back to Pakistan, the law minister said the former Punjab chief minister would know his fate once he returned to the country. He said Shahbaz was not returning home probably because he knew that a number of things against him would come to light once he set foot on the country’s soil.
The government, he said, had no intention to keep any political party out of the electoral process. He, however, added that if some party was debarred, it would be under the law.
He rejected reports that there was any possibility of the postponement of general elections, as reported by a section of the press. The elections would be held on time even if the situation on the eastern borders remained unchanged, he emphasized.
At present, there are some one million troops deployed by Pakistan and India on the borders and since India is not willing to withdraw these, Pakistan is also not in a position to pull back its troops to peace time positions.
The law minister said rumours about the postponement of elections were being spread by elements who were not likely to get tickets from their respective parties.
About the need for bringing in a new order which debars any person from becoming prime minister or chief minister for more than two terms, Ranjha said the step had been taken to rationalize the system. Under Article 44 (4) of the Constitution, he pointed out, this restriction was already applicable to the president. There was no harm, he added, if the restriction had been extended to the prime minister and chief minister.
(A number of political leaders have been affected by the new order: Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Malik Meraj Khalid, Manzoor Wattoo, Zafarullah Jamali, Aftab Sherpao, Muzaffar Ali Shah, Zulfiqar Magsi, Arbab Jehangir being some of them).
The law minister said a person committed to serve the nation could do a lot in two terms.
MANDATE ISSUE: He rejected the viewpoint of political parties and the bar associations that the Musharraf government did not have the mandate to amend the Constitution.
Political parties and lawyers community argue that since the apex court itself did not have the power to alter the basic law it could not give any such power to an individual, as it had done in Syed Zafar Ali Shah case.
Ranjha said: “The Constitution is that what is declared by the Supreme Court. If you submit to the Supreme Court, then you have to accept the verdict. The apex court has the power to decide matters, and whatever decision comes from it is the right decision. Nobody has the right to come up with his own verdict after the one from the apex court.”
The argument offered by all bar associations and councils, he said, was perceptional, based on their political affiliations. According to him, lawyers offer quite different opinions when they talked separately.
Asked whether the government would take any initiative to satisfy the lawyers who had already decided to boycott courts on July 15 to protest against the constitutional amendments package, the minister thought there was no justification for any protest.
The proposed amendments, he said, were being opposed by both the major parties because of their own interests. One party felt hurt because it had been ousted from power and the other because the package would give protection to the accountability process.
Ranjha said it was right that the parliament could look into all amendments, and the decisions of one parliament were not binding on the other.
When it was pointed out that people had objections that the government was drastically changing the Constitution which had been framed with consensus in 1973, he said nobody should forget that seven amendments had been made within three years of its enforcement and all of them were aimed at enhancing the powers of the prime minister.
Referring specifically to Nawaz Sharif, he said he was a prime minister who wanted to grab powers of the legislature and the judiciary.
He did not agree with the suggestion that the package, if implemented, would rob the prime minister of all his important powers. He argued that the president had a number of discretionary powers under the original 1973 Constitution. “The package will restore the situation as it existed in 1997.” And since no-one had ever claimed that the system in vogue till 1997 was presidential, he added, there was little justification for anybody to say that now.
About assertions that the National Security Council would be a supra-constitutional body which would make even the parliament redundant, Ranjha said the NSC would be like a fatherly figure which would institutionalize the monitoring system. It would take away the army from the threshold of parliament, he further said, asserting that such a body would ward off military interventions in future.
Asked what situation did he visualize in case opposition parties took a collective decision of boycotting the elections, the law minister said he did not think such a stage would come. “I expect political parties will show their vision.” They must show wisdom so that the transfer of power could take place, he remarked.
He said some parties had boycotted the 1985 elections but the people did not support their decision. Voters, he added, had taken part in large numbers because of which the boycotting parties had always regretted their decision.
The minister believed that the situation would not be any different today. People would contest the elections even if any party decided to stay away, he said, adding that any party boycotting the electoral process would not be doing any national service.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.