SC’s course correction

A DAY after emphasising that disqualification of parliamentarians from public office should never be taken lightly, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court has overturned an Islamabad High Court decision barring PML-N leader Khawaja Asif from public office.

The Supreme Court has now cleared the way for Mr Asif to contest the upcoming general election. That should be welcomed.

First, however, the role of Khawaja Asif in helping create the controversy ought to be considered. Why was the then foreign minister, a senior leader of the PML-N and a politician with decades of public service behind him, in the employ of a foreign company that entitled him to a sizeable salary?

Whatever the motivations of Mr Asif’s political opponent in moving the courts, surely there is no reasonable political or moral justification for his employment abroad.

Yet, the Islamabad High Court’s judgement against Mr Asif was also flawed. The very fact that the high court acknowledged its concerns about deploying Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution against a politician but went ahead and did so anyway suggests that the superior judiciary must review its approach in matters that are clearly justiciable but that also have significant effects for national political stability.

Thankfully, the three-member bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Umar Bandial has tried to correct course, drawing the judiciary away from unnecessary controversy and towards a rights-based, democracy-promoting, institution-strengthening interpretation of the law.

Certainly, in a court of law the specific facts of each case must be treated in accordance with the law as interpreted by the apex court.

However, clearly the next parliament must move to quickly address the unnecessary problems that qualification and disqualification criteria for MPs in the Constitution have created for those aspiring to elected public office.

The right to participate in the political process, as a voter or candidate, is a sacrosanct one that should only be restricted for the narrowest of reasons in situations where the facts are manifestly clear.

It is parliament’s right to amend the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret it. If parliament amends language in the Constitution open to unnecessarily wide interpretation and inserts fair and transparent criteria that promote the democratic project, the superior courts will surely abide by the changes.

What should be clear to all is that the current confusion is undesirable and unsustainable.