2(B) or not 2(B)?

Everyone realised that things were very serious when President Musharraf cancelled his visit to the Beijing Olympics. He would not let our only true friend down easily. The double-edged Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times” can be a curse and a blessing. In our case it is a curse most vile, which is even affecting China now. There’s never a dull moment here. No wonder I get bored so quickly when I’m abroad.

Wasn’t it amusing to see Asif Zardari sitting next to the guy who had really done him in, taking the name of the president with such venom that it seemed that he might bust a gasket? Let’s get things in perspective. To try and impeach the president is their constitutional right. But it’s strictly a numbers game and has to be done exactly according to the procedure laid down in Article 47 of the constitution. The president can be removed or impeached only on three grounds: “…physical or mental incapacity”; “violating the constitution” or “…gross misconduct”. This can only be done when, “Not less than half of the total membership of either house…may give to the Speaker National Assembly or…the Senate chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of or…to impeach, the president; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charge against him.” If the notice goes to the Senate chairman, “he shall transmit it forthwith to the speaker” who shall, “…within three days” of receiving it “cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the president…The speaker shall summon the two houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after receipt of the notice by him.”

Now comes the possible copout and confusion. “The joint sitting ‘may’ investigate or cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded.” [emphasis added]. “The president shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation, “if any”, and before the joint sitting.” [Emphasis added]. Unless this is poor language, the words “and be represented” could only mean that whether he chooses to be represented or not, the president has to appear himself if he wishes to give his point of view. Otherwise it would have been, “‘or’ be represented.” And the words “if any” means parliament may choose to vote and not “cause to be investigated” the ground or charge, which goes against due process as it removes the president’s “right to appear and be represented during the investigation.” It couldn’t be a mistake, because the words “if any” appear again. “If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, “if any”, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the ‘total’ membership of [parliament] declaring that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution.” [emphasis added].