Impeaching the president

An important constitu-tional and political pivot of the current crisis pertains to the legal consequences of Musharraf acting continuously in violation of the basic norms of the country's laws. Democratic elements were looking forward to some determination by the nation's parliament of this matter. While the biggest component of the coalition, PPP under Zardari is hedging the issue, the PML-N under Nawaz Sharif has demanded that this be done. Of course, the civil society led by the legal fraternity is also asking for it.
Without going into the causation of this PPP policy which runs counter to Charter of Democracy signed in London in 2006 by Benazir herself, I propose to write in this column is the constitutional position of this subject to present my articulations on what this impeachment may include.
This pioneer effort is at urging of lawyer friends, specially the Chairman Rashid Qureshi and secretary of the Save Judiciary Committee which has been in the forefront of the current movement towards the restoration of democracy. When the Restoration Resolution in respect of the judiciary illegally deposed by Musharraf became a matter that no one was willing to sit down and draft despite the over whelming support of the idea, I had the high and historic privilege of drafting such a document which was then presented to the people at the historic Minar-e-Pakistan by the Save Judiciary Committee on May 14, 2008 and enthusiastically accepted at the same where in 1940 Pakistan Resolution was moved.
First of all let me remove two basic misunderstandings of this topic. It is wrongly asserted by some that such a Resolution requires a two-thirds majority of the parliament to be initiated. I have already elaborated that the legal conception that the present parliament can certainly move for the removal of the president through an impeachment which is specifically mentioned in Article 47 of the constitution.
The impeachment in Pakistan cannot be moved by fewer members for adoption as is the case of this process in the US where an impeachment is initiated by the moving of a simple resolution by a member and seconded by another. Most recently on June 9 two members of the US Congress have done so against Bush. So Pakistan's position is certainly more difficult as it ensures that no disgruntled group of politicians should be able to do so. But if the move has the capacity to muster 50 percent of a House membership, then they can certainly do so in Pakistan.
Accordingly, if there is a large number of legislators willing to undertake this task, then the matter may well end after initiation is commenced since only conviction requires a two-third majority; but any president who is able to sense the general mood of the nation at any given time, would resign after such initiation is under way. We have the example of Nixon who resigned rather than face impeachment.
What is the effect of the impeachment process? Is the effect confined to a removal from office and the hearings disclose a long list of constitutional wrong doings, does that allow the afflicted or the state to file proceedings in the form of criminal indictments against the accused? In this case the punishment should have to the one allowed by or permitted by the relevant law. Or does a removal from office through impeachment lead to punishment ipso facto? What form does such an indictment actually take? These questions require specific answers.
Whereas the constitution of 1973 does not say so explicitly, the punishment for criminal wrongdoing of a guilty president would be through a prosecution by the state or through a separate complaint for the alleged criminal liability of the accused who was the incumbent president. In other words, impeachment per se would lead only to the removal of a person from office and not punishment.
Let us initially see the actual text of the recent Impeachment Resolution introduced by US Congressman Kucinich containing 35-point allegations, which seeks to impeach US 43rd Bush for high crimes and other illegal and criminal acts.
Dennis Kucinich told the 110th US Congress that Bush has allegedly is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours; therefore, the US House must impeach Bush because he has committed many crimes during the last eight years. Addressing the House, US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that the Kucinich resolution is as follows: