Pakistan parliament bills seek to ban judges’ dual citizenship, limit powers

ISLAMABAD: A Pakistani opposition lawmaker on Tuesday tabled three constitutional bills in the National Assembly, seeking a ban on dual citizenship for judges, proposing a nine-member bench for public interest cases and abolishing the Supreme Court’s authority to initiate legal proceedings on its own through suo motu powers.
The opposition member, Noor Alam Khan of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) party, introduced the bills on private members’ day, allowing lawmakers to propose legislation independently of their party’s policy.
The bills come at a time when the government is at odds with the country’s judiciary following a Supreme Court ruling declaring the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of jailed ex-PM Imran Khan eligible for reserved seats for women and religious minorities in the national and provincial legislatures.
The ruling weakened Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s fragile coalition, which could lose its two-thirds majority in parliament if the decision is implemented. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party has already filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the verdict favoring the PTI.
“Whether it’s a judge or a bureaucrat, no one should be a dual national,” Khan said while introducing the bill, adding if members of parliament could not have dual nationality, nobody should have it.
While private member bills rarely become laws since they require government support, particularly in case of a constitutional amendment which requires two-third majority in both the National Assembly and the Senate, Pakistan’s law minister Azam Nazir Tarar described it a “reasonable suggestion.”
The JUI-F lawmaker also objected to how the top court employed Article 184(3) of the constitution, which grants suo motu powers to judges, previously.
“This Article 184(3) has been often misused in the past,” he said, adding that numerous politicians including prime ministers had been convicted after the court invoked the legal provision and calling for an amendment to prevent its misuse.
In the bill, he suggested that a nine-member Supreme Court bench should first decide if a case warrants suo motu proceedings and also grant the right to review to the applicants.
The Pakistani law minister said the right to appeal in such cases was already granted to applicants through a previous legislation, and a five-member bench could hear public interest cases. However, he did not oppose the bill.
Khan also introduced another bill in the house seeking the repeal of contempt of court powers, saying the court had previously targeted prime ministers and their cabinet members by using the law and initiating legal proceedings.
“This constitutes a human rights violation,” he continued, emphasizing that no such law existed in the entire world.
The law minister agreed there should be no “oppressive law” that could impact the citizen’s freedom of expression. However, he suggested any amendment in this regard should be introduced in the act of parliament instead of the constitution.
Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly and chairman of ex-PM Khan’s PTI party, urged the speaker of the assembly not to allow the JUI-F member to introduce the bill since it was against the independence of judiciary.
“The judiciary should have powers to get its judgments implemented through force of law,” he emphasized.
Legal experts said that successive governments in Pakistan had tried to either control the courts through legislations or get the judgments in their favor by curtailing their powers.
“Our Supreme Court and high courts’ involvement in political cases have increased manifold over the years,” Justice (retired) Shaiq Usmani told Arab News. “Therefore, the lawmakers are trying to control them through legislation which is their constitutional right.”
Advocate Faisal Chaudhary said introduction of the bills regarding the superior judiciary in parliament was an attempt to “push back” the judges, adding the attempt would not succeed.
“The government along with its allies doesn’t enjoy the required two-third majority in parliament to pass these constitutional amendments,” he told Arab News. “They are just trying to intimidate the judges through different tactics to get favorable verdicts, but they won’t succeed.”