The common interpretation is that Article 62 and 63 were inconsistent and were applied in a selective manner of the Sharif Family, when in fact, they weren’t,  and the fact that ROPA 1976, was used as the foundation of disqualification rather than the above articles and whether the JIT stepped out of bounds.

Why is it not simple enough for the SC to just disqualify the PM, on the basis of Article 62 and 63?

Debating on Article 62 and Article 63, and citing it as the only ground for removal of the PM, would do injustice to the the difficult line drawn by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan. Reading Section 9 and 15, of the Ordinance passed in Article 62 and 63, and using Article 184, Section 3, and passing a judgement on the basis of stated so evidence would be inconsistent with Article 25 of the constitution, which limits the Supreme Court, to exercise jurisdiction, where it can not be exercised. But what happens when an entire nation, takes it on it’s self to assume that it can be applied directly? What’s more surprising to me is why Justice Afzal Khan took the time to explain his discontent with the knowledge of members of Parliament (PTI,PPP), the very members of Parliament who wanted to disqualify Respondent 1 (The PM), on the basis of Section 9 and 15 of the Ordinance in Article 63. The Supreme Court should not act to respond, to the desires of members of Parliament. But since this is post-decision, as the decision has already been made, and no trace of politicisation of the elements that make up a final verdict, can be found in Mr. Afzal’s words, therefore, this act of Justice Afzal Khan would not and can not come under any scrutiny, as this was an explanation of the judgement and the elements of the judgement that go into the process of the making the very judgement, but does not contribute to any foul intention in passing the judgement, in accordance with the law. He wanted to clarify the misconception that members of Parliament had about how disqualification does not come under the paradigm of the Supreme Court, for then it would be a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution.

Then what is the correct course of action, if Article 62 and 63, can not be looked into by the SC itself, without it going through the entire hierarchy?

It is the duty of the accountability court, the investigation agency, and other courts in the hierarchy to act along the lines of Qanoon -e -Shihadat of 1984. But, no witnesses were examined or cross examined. Investigation Agency did not perform it’s duty. The Accountability Court, in line with the NAB Ordinance, Sec 9 and 15, did not examine or cross examine the witnesses or looked into the case.

The Burden of the Prosecution?

It falls heavily on the prosecution, to prove that the person, or his dependent or his benamidar possess said property, and the the duty of the accused to prove the legal source of funds. But where they can not be proved, and the discrepancy in value of assets, and income is found, disqualification from holding public office, and Majlis-I-Shoora for 10 years is applicable. This is in reference to 7 cited cases, by Justice Sh. Azmat.

Case 1: Iqbal Ahmad Turabi vs. The State
Case 2: Ghani Ur Rehman vs. NAB
Case 3: Abdul Aziz Memon vs. The State

There are 4 more cited cases, or precedent. Again, this is still the responsibility of the Accountability Court and not the Supreme Court, to give a full fledged trial, under Section 4 and 25.

Did the JIT overstep?

The common consensus was that the JIT overstepped it’s domain by re-opening the case of Hudabiya Paper Mills, when it simply made recommendations in an instance where an appeal is made by a Special Prosecutor of NAB, and the court holds a contrary opinion.

What lead the dis-qualification of the sitting PM?

Nawaz Sharif failed to report salary from Capital FZE, Jebel Ali, in his nomination papers filed for election 2013, which was in the direct violation of Representation of People’s Act, 1976 and submitted a false declaration.

What will happen now?

The Supreme Court has told NAB and FIA to, in reference to the Avenfield Properties, provide reference against Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, Captain Safdar and Hussain and Hassan Nawaz.

More or less, whether one believes the validity of application of Article 62 and 63 of the Pakistani constitution, the same case can be made for Article 19 and 19 A of the Pakistani constitution, which inhibits freedom of speech. The common interpretation of the decision is that both the above articles were used to disqualify the PM, when in fact, it was a violation of the ROPA 1976, that lead to the actual disqualification. Another question can also be raised, that the very disqualification in leu with ROPA, was made on the grounds of dishonesty, but then the opposing claim can be made, that the failure to prove, is in itself far from the sadiq and ameen narrative that seems to have settled in the back of the heads of opposition parties.