Has Nawaz Sharif's lifetime disqualification ended??? Legal Analysis
Has Nawaz Sharif's lifetime disqualification ended??? Legal Analysis
Transcript
00:00 the Supreme Court has decided that Na Ahli means Tahayat Na Ahli and on one side Parliament has amended the election act that Na Ahli means 5 years. So who will tell us which case is ahead of which? And did Nawaz Sharif sir's sword move from his head or not? How did you find out?
00:23 The thing is that the source of the law and the constitution is the one who makes it, who amends it, who makes it better, who spoils it.
00:38 The Supreme Court cannot make a law, nor can it make any additions, nor can it amend it, nor can it spoil it.
00:53 Now, wherever there is a period given in the constitution for something, for example, it says that if a person is punished in contempt of court, then Na Ahli will be of this age.
01:06 It says that if there is a government official, then his eligibility will not be up to the time when he is not in the state of exile for two years. It says that if someone is punished in moral depravity, then he cannot fight the election for a long time.
01:23 In that, the Parliament can change the law by bringing a change in the constitution. No legislation or election act or any subordinate legislation can do that for it.
01:38 Yes, where there is no period given in the constitution for Na Ahli, then the Parliament can necessarily fill that void. In simple words, it does not need a two-third majority.
01:58 The law that the government makes, it makes it with a simple majority. If the amendment has to be done in the constitution, then it needs two-thirds. That too was the right thing of the Parliament. It's just a matter of numbers.
02:14 So you are saying that if there is a decision on one side and on the other side there is not a two-third amendment, but a simple majority resolution or amendment in this case, then without any doubt, because the law makers of the constitution are the members of the Parliament, so there is no debate in this.
02:33 So, you are saying that the Parliament will have to make a legal amendment to this.
02:40 Secondly, the Supreme Court decision has clearly stated that since the Parliament has not made any amendment, we will assume that it is permanent.
02:56 So, the Parliament has made the amendment.
02:58 Yes, the Parliament has made the amendment. And the Parliament has the right to do something with retrospective effect.
03:06 Now, the Supreme Court, as I said earlier, will interpret it.
03:33 No, it's not like that. I will tell you the reason. The reason is that this particular case, 232, which you did, because it was not present earlier, if it was there earlier, it would have been five years, and the Supreme Court would have said that five years, and now you have said that it will be three years. That cannot be.
03:58 First, it was not there, first it was a request for explanation, and then the Parliament made the explanation.
04:03 Absolutely.
04:04 Mr. Zubairi is with us, so I will say this. Mr. Zubairi, how much do you agree with this opinion that Ashtar Rao is saying that it was not there earlier, and the Supreme Court has said that it will be assumed that it is permanent.
04:28 But it is not there. The Parliament said, "Take it away." We made the amendment in the election. Now we have told you the duration, five years. Hence, the duration of the Naili case.
04:35 In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful. I would like to talk with a little respect in a different way. The court did not say this in its judgment.
04:45 The decision of the Supreme Court was coming from 2010. Mr. Nawaz Sharif's decision came in 2018. Before that, in the elections of 2013, many people were given Nail in 62(1)(f).
05:03 The amendment of 62(1)(f) came in 2010 under the 18th amendment. In it, some words were included, in which it was written that you are not a judge etc.
05:18 This was added in 2010. The Supreme Court interpreted this in its various judgments. The judgment of Ovesi started and the judgment came later.
05:38 Samiullah Baloch and all these judgments were given by the court. In it, it was said that as long as this declaration will be there in the court, because in 62(1)(f) no amendment has been given,
05:50 as long as this declaration will be there in the court that you are Nail, and as long as this declaration will be there, it means that your disqualification will be permanent.
06:00 And the fundamental rights that Article 17 gives a person to fight elections, to be a part of a political party, will not be affected.
06:10 So, it is said that because the period is not given in it and later the Parliament made an amendment in 232(f) and stated the period in the Election Act.
06:19 So, in this, it is said that as long as this declaration will be there, your disqualification will be permanent.
06:34 Sir, tell us one thing, Mr. Zubairi, to understand this, it may sound funny, but is it really right? For example, now it is 62(1) in simple words that there is no bailiff, there is no simple scoundrel,
06:49 and it is Nail on 62(1)(f), so it is Nail for life. A man has killed and he has been punished for the murder, whatever punishment he has been given.
06:57 For how many years is he Nail in today's history, according to the constitution?
07:03 Look, there are two articles in the constitution, 62 and 63. 62 deals for qualification.
07:10 The article 63 of disqualification is given in 63(1)(g) and (h) that his Nail will be for 5 years. Now, h which is 63(1)(h) of the article of the constitution,
07:26 it says that a man has been given moral turpitude, there is a punishment in it and it will not be less than 2 years, so its punishment will be for 5 years, his Nail.
07:36 He will be disqualified for 5 years.
07:40 If the murderer is not Nail under 62(1)(f), then after 5 years he will be Nail for the election.
07:46 Yes, 62(1)(f) is the word used there for moral turpitude.
07:51 Moral turpitude is a crime that is morally wrong, so you get 2 years of punishment for it.
07:59 Sir, it is interesting that you are a simple criminal, you are on the false side, you are Nail, it is possible that you will be Nail for 5 years.
08:08 The murderer will be punished in his jail, but technically you are not Nail for 5 years, you are on the false side.
08:13 The thing is that disqualification, I am talking to you about qualification, where the article is 62(1)(g) and 63(1)(h) is talking about qualification.
08:22 The thing about the rest of the crimes, Naili is in 63(1)(g) that he is disqualified.
08:29 Here he is not qualified, he is not Sadiq Ameen Segesius and he is not included in the declaration court.
08:35 See, this is the reason they said that even if you don't like this, like yesterday it was discussed in the court that he is a murderer and he has committed a crime,
08:46 he will be punished for 5 years, but here it will not be under 62(1)(f) because in 62(1)(f) there is no period given.
08:53 Yes, I was saying the same thing, what was discussed in the court yesterday, it is factually correct.
08:58 So you said that the parliament has given him 5 years, what I am saying is that when the court gives an interpretation of a legal article,
09:08 there is only one way to change it, that is to amend the article.
09:15 In 62(1)(f) what they said in 232, the parliament will not amend it, but the court will do it.
09:23 They will do it and give him 5 years.
09:26 So this is how it will be done.
09:27 What I mean to say is that the court which says that he is not included in the declaration,
09:32 they will give him 5 years, but in the case where the declaration is given that he is not a Sadiq or Amin,