Attorney General of Pakistan Khalid Javed Khan on Monday assured the Supreme Court that MNAs would not face any difficulties in attending the session of the National Assembly in which the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan would be tabled.
He also informed the court that lawmakers - including defectors - would not be barred from casting their vote on the no-trust motion irrespective of theri party affiliation.
This was also shared by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Senator Advocate Azam Nazeer Tarar, while talking to media after the hearing of the SCBA plea which seeks peaceful execution of no-confidence vote proceedings in the NA.
A two-member bench, comprising CJP Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Munib Akhtar, heard the SCBA petition and the presidential refernece, for which a five-member bench was constituted by the CJP. The next hearing on the reference is scheduled for March 24.
Quoting the AGP, Tarar added: “MNAs will neither be barred from voting on the basis of the presidential reference filed by the government nor a stay order would be demanded on the no-confidence motion on the basis of the reference as it is related to a future point of view.”
Recently, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leadership had taken an aggressive stance against defectors if they didn't vote against the no-confidence motion. Even PM Imran Khan said that such lawmakers would be socially and politically ostracised, while they would be unable to return to their constituencies either.
CJP's remarks
CJP Umar Ata Bandial remarked that it must be ensured that no lawmaker was deprived of the right to vote for or against the no-confidence vote seeking PM Imran's ouster, stressing that it is the constitutional right of every parliamentarian, Aaj News reported.
The court is not convinced on interfering in the NA's affairs. CJP Bandial remarked during the hearing, adding that the court only wants that no one's right to vote is affected.
While hearing arguments from the SCBA lawyer regarding the delay in the voting on the no-confidence motion, the CJP remarked that “these are the internal matters of the assembly,” adding that it would be better to fight these battles inside the assembly.
Justice Munib Akhtar's observation
Justice Munib Akhtar observed that after joining a political party, a member's individual vote during no-confidence proceedings was considered a "collective right", reported Dawn.
The jurist cited Article 95(ii), which deals with the procedure to bring in a no-confidence motion against the prime minister. As per the report, the jurist observed that a member's individual vote had "no status", adding that the court had previously made similar observations in cases related to former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
After joining a political party, a member's vote was considered a "collective" right, he added.
Citing senior lawyers, the report stated that if this observation is extrapolated, it would imply that lawmakers cannot vote against party lines during no-confidence proceedings against the premier. In case they do vote against the party line, their vote may not be counted and/or they may face disqualification. As per Dawn, both lawyers Abdul Moiz Jaferii and Barrister Salahuddin AhmedBoth did not agree with this interpretation of the Constitution, calling it restrictive. They did that a single observation could not be used to deduce the logic behind it and that things would be clearer once the court issues a final order.
Lifetime disqualification over defection
The PTI, which seemingly is moving headlong into a political disaster in the form of the no-trust vote as more of its disgruntled lawmakers rub shoulders with opposition leaders, has also sought the Supreme Court's interpretation on whether defection should result in a life-long ban. In the presidential reference, it also asked the court whether the votes of such defectors could be invalidated in light of Article 63-A of the Constitution.
While talking to the media, Senator Tarar said Article 95 of the Constitution and rule 37 of the National Assembly Conduct of Business Rules clearly state that the NA speaker could not do anything which would violate the law or the Constitution.
He further said the apex court had made the SCBA petition pending, while issuing notices to the political parties in the presidential reference to give their opinion and assist the court.
Sindh House breach
Regarding the attack on Sindh House in Islamabad, the PML-N lawmaker said the apex court has directed the Islamabad inspector general to include the version of the Sindh government - through Sindh's attorney general - in the first information report. The investigation would be conducted according to that, quoting the court orders, he added.
Constitutional supremacy
Supreme Court Bar Association President Advocate Ahsan Bhoon said that the bar was of the opinion that rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution would prevail in the country. “No one will be allowed to violate the Constitution, while the democratic process and the parliamentary democracy will run smoothly.”
He added that the National Assembly speaker is bound to continue the process of no-confidence motion from three to seven days according to Article 95 of the Constitution.
The petition submitted by the SCBA would provide room to prospective governments to apply for the application and implementation of the Article 6 in future, he added. “The implementation of the Constitution will be ensured even if the heavens fall.”
“The Constitution is being violated in the Parliament [as the speaker has summoned the session of the NA after 14 days of requisition of the no-confidence motion]. Also, the speaker is making the Article 95 and 54 of the Constitution redundant only to support a particular party and the government,” he said.
The SCBA president added the bars’ lawyers had brought a neutral matter to the court for the supremacy of the Constitution and law.
He further said: “The presidential reference negates Article 63 of the Constitution which states that the proceedings would only be taken against the lawmakers after violating the party policies.”
No intention to disrupt OIC
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz President Shehbaz Sharif, while talking to media, said that the opposition party “knows very well” about the commitments of the government. Despite the previous record “we hope that the government will follow the court orders”.
Shehbaz said that the opposition had agreed to move their public gathering forward due to the organisation of Islamic Cooperation Council of Foreign Ministers moot which will be held on March 22 and 23 so that a peaceful environment could be assured for the conference, he continued.
He mentioned that the speaker could have summoned the session on March 21 but he delayed it. “Intentionally the speaker did not summon the session in the stipulated time period which he could on Monday. He violated the rules.”
Shehbaz added the government intended to trap the opposition so that the ruling party would get an opportunity to demean the latter’s leaders. “Whatever will be the situation, we had no intention to disrupt the OIC conference. However, under the garb of the moot, the speaker violated the Constitution.”
Horses for courses
Pakistan People’s Party Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari clarified that the opposition parties did not approach the Supreme Court for political matter. “The SCBA has approached the court as they had a view that democracy could be in danger and they requested the apex court to defend the Constitution and law.”
He added that the PPP believed in fighting political battles in the Parliament while in courts they would stand up for their constitutional and legal rights. “The prime minister wants to escape from the no-confidence move to the extent that he is going to violate the Constitution.”
Bilawal said the federal government through the speaker violated the Constitution as the session for the no-confidence motion should have been summoned within 14 days of the requisition. “This was the first violation of the Constitution by the speaker.”
He suggested the speaker to run the house by getting legal advice through lawyer as the government would stuck him in the Article 6 of the Constitution.
Bilawal expected that the judiciary would not take any political side and would take the Constitutional, legal and democratic side.
