Nawaz Sharif ousted by Pakistan's Supreme Court

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with his son Hussain Nawaz

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday disqualified Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from holding office for life. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigned following the judgment despite having reservations on the verdict. Following the judgment, the Pakistan Cabinet stands dissolved. The court also ordered a criminal investigation and trial against Nawaz Sharif and his family.

• The court disqualified him from office over allegations detailed in the Panama Papers. The disqualification was for life, that was the law for the moment.
• The court ruled Sharif  “is not honest … [and] therefore, he is disqualified to be a Member of ”parliament,” and, consequently, the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
• Nawaz Sharif not only served as chairman of the board of a Dubai-based company Capital FZE, he also drew a salary of 10,000 dirhams between Aug 7, 2006 and April 20, 2014 — till nearly a year after assuming office. The sticking point was that Sharif did not declare this income in his nomination papers.
• UAE's labour laws mandate that all employees must receive a salary through a bank account, failing which the firm can be blacklisted and shut down. This technicality proved to be the former prime minister's undoing.
• Where respondent did not disclose his assets, it would amount to furnishing a false declaration on solemn affirmation in violation of the law and he is not honest, the court concluded. Sharif would, therefore, have to go. All five judges concurred.
• Panama Papers documents alleged that three of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s four children—Maryam Safdar, Hasan Nawaz, and Hussain Nawaz Sharif—used shell companies to buy property in London. Nawaz Sharif, whose party was democratically elected in 2013, has denied any wrongdoing.
• A document was purported to be written in February 2006 but court-appointed investigators concluded that it was forged, noting that it used the Calibri font, a Microsoft licensed typeface that was not commercially available at the time.
  

• Sharif was in his third term as prime minister. He previously served from 1990 to 1993, when he was dismissed by the president on corruption charges, and again from 1997 to 1999, when he was ousted in a military coup. This is his third term as prime minister, that ended abruptly by Supreme Court judgment.
• Next general elections are scheduled for 2018.
• None of Pakistan’s 15 prime ministers have completed their full five-year term, victims of military coups, corruption, and, even death.
• Sohail Warraich, a prominent Pakistani journalist remarked “It was a colossal miscalculation. He probably thought they’d take it to the edge and then let him off. He didn’t read the signs.” It was a catastrophic miscalculation.
• Justice Azmat Saeed responded with “we cannot resort to exceptionalism by making a departure from the settled law and inventing a new set of rules merely because Respondent No.1 holds the Office of the Prime Minister. The last time in our legal history, when such a course of action was followed, it had tragic consequences.”
• A barrister opines that the “tragic consequences” were visited not only upon that prime minister but on the nation as a whole and the long-term credibility of the Supreme Court itself. If there was ever a judgement that begs review, this is it.
• Whoever replaces Sharif will have to tackle Pakistan’s worsening ties with the United States, frayed relations with India, and persistent attacks by Islamist militants including the Pakistani Taliban and Islamic State. The economy is benefiting from vast investment from China, but economists are concerned about falling currency reserves and dwindling exports.
• Yet by respecting Supreme Court verdict and resigning as PM, Nawaz Sharif effectively thwarted Army's intervention in political power play.
• With Sharif's exit our problems with Pakistan won't get vanished, rather they would get more complicated. With no aid from USA, internal economy in doldrums, Pakistan will continue to rely on China for assistance and status quo will continue.

Through the Panama Papers judgement, the balance of power had been tilted in favour of the Supreme Court and the qualification of parliamentarians had been threatened. The parliamentarians, feeling threatened, might react by getting together for a constitutional amendment aimed at curtailing or restricting the scope of powers of Supreme Court under Article 62 of the Constitution.

My View:

Pakistan Supreme Court should be appreciated for enforcing law equally even for a prime minister. Even though the offence is relatively smaller with no loss to exchequer, the law doesn't provide any exceptional treatment to VIP's. This is similar to "Prime Minister jailed for traffic offence". At times it could push the nation into turmoil. Recollect what happened in 1975 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was unseated by Allahabad High Court for a small election offence. It ended up in emergency and political unrest for several years. In a democracy, law must be enforced without discrimination, at any cost without fear of consequences. Kudos to Pakistan Supreme Court for its fearless judgment. Our SC Judges must learn some lessons from our neighbor, whose democracy is far junior to us and relatively immature.