There must be a leap of faith involved --Imran Khan faces a genuine disqualification risk--

         The main threat to Imran Khan's eligibility may not be related to the foreign funding matter as much as it may be related to his failure to declare his earnings from the sale of Toshakhana presents to the ECP as required annually in the years 2018 and 2019. On a strictly technical and legalistic view of rules and precedent, even though the declaration was eventually made in 2020, it can still have serious repercussions if it is not made during the pertinent and specific two years. The possibility of a Supreme Court disqualification ruling in a case involving a previous prime minister's failure to disclose assets looms over the current situation like a sword of Damocles.

In the case of Imran Khan Niazi & others v. Mian Mohammad Nawaz Shareef, the Supreme Court ruled that Mian Mohammad Nawaz Shareef was permanently disqualified for holding public office because he failed to disclose to the ECP in 2013 his "unwithdrawn" payable salary of 10,000 UAE Dirhams per month from his son's company. The five-judge panel was led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar.

 

If the Supreme Court's disqualification of Nawaz Shareef, a three-term prime minister, based on a nebulous legal provision applied to flimsy and insufficient evidence, cannot be fully justified on moral or legal grounds, the potential disqualification of Imran Khan, a former prime minister, cannot either be deemed just or proper. However weak and dubious the credentials of a parliamentary civilian democracy, discrediting and disqualifying politicians who hold significant popular mandates is seriously debatable as it is detrimental to fostering strong and viable democratic traditions, which are essential for national survival and development.

 

Undoubtedly, the judgment against Nawaz Shareef continues to be a contested choice that tarnishes our judicial record. On that point, genuine misgivings are still expressed by even the most passionate of viewpoints. Can one dubious decision serve as the foundation for another dubious one? Unfortunately, poor choices lead to terrible precedents and even worse effects.

 

It won't be a stretch to say that the Zia-era constitutional revisions that included the "Sadiq" and "Ameen" clauses in Article 62(1)(f) were done so specifically to limit access to politics to individuals who the Zia and the establishment deemed acceptable. The clause must be seen as ambiguous and subject to diverse interpretations because there is no agreed-upon definition of what, in Islam, precisely qualifies as sagacity and honesty. There is no consensus on how to interpret or apply the terms "sage, virtuous, non-profligate, honest, and Ameen."

 

It is a well-established legal notion that any law's objective and purpose should be clear and unambiguous rather than subject to many diverse interpretations. The discretion and personal judgment of individuals charged with enforcing the law must be constrained by laws.

 

Due to the fact that Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution are against natural law, justice, and reason, it is necessary to review them in order to clear up any remaining ambiguity and obscurity. Unjust situations must unavoidably result from a cryptic law. More so in questions of state and those that determine how democratic growth and civilian primacy develop in a nation attempting to establish strong constitutional traditions. For us to achieve true democracy, every barrier to institutionalizing strong democratic norms, practices, and traditions—which, sadly, our evolution as a democratic government has had to encounter plenty of—must be eradicated.

 

It is crucial to reevaluate, revise, or remove this clause from the Constitution in order to achieve civilian supremacy, which is another term for the ascendancy of the common will. All political parties in the National Assembly must come together to modify the Constitution with a two-thirds majority for it to happen. Only that would pave the way for the removal of this problematic clause that impedes the advancement of democracy and politics. Can the PDM government work with the PTI in parliament to put the larger good of restoring the true spirit of democracy ahead of party prejudice and inclinations?

 

The Nawaz Shareef ruling also needs to be reviewed and overturned in order to ensure fair legality and this can be done by the aforementioned constitutional amendment. The amendment, if approved by a two-thirds majority, has the power to overturn the dubious rulings against Imran Khan and Nawaz Shareef as well. To ensure that all political parties have a level playing field in future elections that are free and fair, all political parties must take a leap of faith.

 

All political parties must come together on this shared basic agenda in order to lay the groundwork for the advancement of true democracy, promote democracy and civilian supremacy, and guarantee that each institution operates within its designated legal purview. This significant step could pave the way for a tolerant political system in which each party works to advance its policies by seeking the support of the voters in a fair and open election process. The solution to our numerous issues with national cohesiveness, the rule of law, the sanctity of the vote, and the wellbeing of the general populace can only be found in constitutional parliamentary democracy.