A case of divided loyalties

The issue of 'dual nationals' holding public office has been awaiting equitable settlement for more than five years, ie, since September 2012, when the Supreme Court disqualified 11 legislators from remaining members of Parliament as well as provincial assemblies for being nationals of other countries. The Election Commission was also directed to take a fresh declaration from legislators and de-notify those holding dual nationality. The decision, seen as selective, did not go down well with the legislature or the government. In February 2014, the Senate initiated proceedings seeking similar treatment for judges, but the apex court announced none of its members held nationality of a foreign country. Not too long afterwards, the Court also rejected a government request for names of judges having dual nationality, this time saying "the Constitution or the Code of Conduct for judges of the superior courts place[s] no bar on judges having dual nationality."
Thanks to Chief Justice Saqib Nisar's tireless campaign to right many wrongs, that situation is about to change and the same standard may be applied to judges as well as civil servants. The court has called for complete details of senior government officials as well as members of the judiciary holding dual nationality. It is pertinent to recall here that several countries do not allow public office holders, elected or appointed, to be citizens of two or more states. Last year in Australia, for instance, the government was thrown into a crisis after a High Court disqualified five lawmakers of the ruling party and its allies for breaching the bar on dual nationals. The idea behind the bar, of course, is that such individuals could be susceptible to divided loyalties. That can affect the conduct of a legislator or holder of a public office while taking a position on a policy matter and a judge deciding a case concerning their adopted country. The possibility of that happening is quite real in Pakistan considering that certain foreign governments are known to seek influence over the power structure; and many public office holders have financial interests abroad, which could act as a factor for them to give consideration to another state. That is not to say, every case is suspicious, but that some 'dual nationals' have conflicting interests which can weigh against the home country. Hence there is a strong sentiment that they should be barred from holding public office.
Now that the Chief Justice has taken cognizance of the matter, it is not difficult to fathom what lies in store for those possessing two or more nationalities while serving in high office. A related question that also needs to be addressed is that of high officials holding resident visas for various countries. As the apex court discovered during the Panama case proceedings many important personages have acquired such visas for drawing economic benefits. This activity must also be checked. Only those totally committed to living in and serving this country should have a say in its policy formulation processes and the authority to pronounce and execute decisions.