ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Justice and Democratic (PJDC) Party has filed a reference against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, seeking the prime minister’s disqualification.
The reference is filed on basis that PM Nawaz is not Sadiq and Ameen in view of the Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Former chief justice and PJDC Chairman, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, announced at a news conference that his party’s chief organiser in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Sardar Umar Farooq Khan had filed a reference against the prime minister under Article 63(2) of the Constitution.
He said that the reference had been filed after detailed investigations related to PM Nawaz’s business. Under Article 63 (2), “if any question arises whether a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the speaker or, as the case may be, the chairman shall, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days and if he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Commission.”
Similarly, the election commission of Pakistan (ECP) would decide the question within 90 days from its receipt or deemed to have been received and if it is of the opinion that the member has become disqualified.
The same matter had been raised earlier in Supreme Court when Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) approached the apex court for the disqualification of the prime minister. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ali Zafar had said then that the apex court cannot adjudicate any matter related to disqualification.
He said that the matter involved factual controversy. He also contended that the prime minister’s wealth in the garb of offshore companies required evidence. However, he also said that the disqualification of the prime minister was possible only if an inquiry commission was formed and evidence was recorded.
He said that former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s judgments regarding the disqualification of a number of parliamentarians were not legally correct. He added that the temperament of the incumbent judiciary was different and they decided cases in accordance with the laws.
