The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved its decision on the suo motto action taken against the legality of the National Assembly proceedings on 03 April. The court announced that the verdict would be announced at 7:30 in the evening. Soon after the Supreme Court notified that the decision would be announced today, the security around the red zone was ramped up.
Earlier during the hearing, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, addressing the Attorney General of Pakistan underlined that there was no doubt that the speaker’s ruling on 03 April was erroneous. “The real question is what happens next,” he added. The Chief Justice made these comments after consultation with the bench.
Read More: Refrain from long speeches; court tells PTI counsel
The Attorney General also made it clear before the court that he was not representing the speaker. The AGP added that it was important to show the support of the majority at the time of tabling the resolution; the opposition had failed to do so. Responding to the comments made by the AGP, Justice Akhtar said that according to the line of argument, “the prime minister would have been ousted,” at the onset of the tabling of the resolution, to which the AGP replied that the constitution had given seven days before final voting takes place on the resolution, giving time to the Chief Executive to win back support from the disgruntled lawmakers. The Chief Justice replied that the number 172 was “required at the time of voting” and not before it. He further added that if the speaker had approved the resolution, then “it’s the end of the topic,” referring to the argument of the speaker’s counsel. At this point, the AGP said if that is the case, then the same could be said about the 03 April ruling.
However, the AGP also underlined that there was no “firewall” that gave the speaker impunity. “The court will decide the extent to which parliamentary proceedings can be reviewed,” he said. The AGP pointed out that the court could intervene if the speaker declared a person with the minority number of votes to be the prime minister. The PML-N counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan said that “I knew that it was not possible to defend the speaker’s ruling.” He further referred to Haji Saifullah’s case as a precedent.
Read More: MNA’s allowed to vote: Supreme Court Bar
Before the court secured its verdict, the rostrum was given to the leader of the opposition, who said, “I have one request … Restore the NA,”.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail pointed out that even though the decision was carried out by the deputy speaker, it contained the signature of the speaker Mr. Asad Qaiser. Responding to the judge’s statement, the speaker’s counsel said that perhaps the judge did not have the original documents.
Speakers counsel:
According to local media, Naeem Bukhari, the counsel of the former speaker and deputy speaker, presented the minutes of the parliamentary National Security Committee meeting in the court. After reviewing the document, Justice Mandokhail questioned the speaker’s counsel about the absence of the foreign minister’s signatures in the document and asked that “Shouldn’t the foreign minister have been present?” to which the lawyer responded in the affirmative. Responding to a question by Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan on whether a vote of no confidence could be dismissed on a point of order, the counsel replied in the affirmative.
نعیم بخاری نے پارلیمانی قومی سلامتی کمیٹی اجلاس کے منٹس عدالت میں پیش کردیئے
— HUM News اردو (@humnews_urdu) April 7, 2022
The speaker’s counsel noted that there was no precedent of it but affirmed that the speaker has the authority to dismiss a no-confidence resolution. He further underlined that the assembly had been dissolved, and the country was moving towards fresh elections.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, questioned the Prime Ministers’ counsel, “how could article 58 be invoked when a no confidence resolution was underway,” to which he replied that the deputy speaker had dismissed the no-confidence resolution through his ruling. Following the counsel’s reply, the Chief Justice remarked that “apparently the speaker had violated article 95 of the constitution when he issued the ruling.” The Prime Minister’s counsel replied that the speaker issued the ruling in view of an alleged foreign conspiracy against the country’s sitting Prime Minister. However, the counsel replied in the negative when he was asked if he knew when the speaker was intimated of the foreign conspiracy.
Read More: FBR takes Telenor to court over tax default
President’s counsel:
The President’s counsel also presented his case before the court. The lawyer Ali Zafar replied in the affirmative when the country’s top judge noted that there was no constitutional crisis. Justice Miankhel questioned the President’s counsel whether the chief executive would be protected if the constitution was violated. He asked the counsel, “Is Parliament not the guardian of the Constitution?” To which he replied that the constitution must be protected in accordance with the rules and with keeping in mind each and every article of the constitution. Responding to a question by the Chief Justice on whether or not the judiciary could interfere in parliamentary affairs, Senator Ali Zafar said, “Can Parliament interfere if there’s a conflict between judges; The answer is no. The judiciary has to settle the matter. It can’t interfere just like Parliament can’t [interfere in judges’ matters].” Referring to the Chief Justice’s comment that everything following the dissolution of the assembly would come under court inquiry, he said that “Junejo’s government was dissolved and the court declared it unconstitutional,” however the court did not interfere in actions taken after the dissolution of the assembly. Justice Miankhel advised the counsel to address the issue and pointed out that what he was referring to was related to the oath. Finally, the Chief Justice added that holding elections can cost billions of rupees.
Read More: Shehbaz Sharif summoned to court in money laundering case
PTI counsel:
On Wednesday, at the outset of the hearing, the courtroom was packed with journalists and politicians alike. Representing PTI, lawyer Babar Awan took the rostrum during the court’s hearing. The PTI lawyer pointed out that many political parties which were members of the parliaments had not been made respondents. He added that Mutahida Qaumi Movement Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), Jamaat-i-Islam (JI), Balochistan Awami Party, and Rah-i-Haq, all of which were members of the Parliament had not been made respondents. Referring to the alleged horse-trading, Babar Awan questioned the court’s silence regarding what had occurred in Sindh house and Lahore Avari Express. He added, “No one said a word about article 63A.” The Supreme Court, which took a suo moto notice of the 03 April National Assembly proceedings, had turned a blind eye to the alleged horse-trading fiasco ahead of the vote on the no-confidence motion. During the hearing, Justice Bandial questioned the PTI lawyer about whether the speaker could issue a ruling on an issue that was not stated in the session’s agenda. He further asked whether the speaker could “issue a ruling without facts” and requested the counsel to defend his case with solid evidence. The Chief Justice noted that the ruling was based on accusations, and nothing of the sort had been proven as of yet. The court further inquired, “where are the minutes of the meeting.” Justice Jamal added that “there is no doubt that one must be loyal to the state” but questioned, “what action could be taken against someone who was disloyal to it.” The court also requested the PTI counsel to refrain from giving long-winded speeches.
Read More: Pakistan’s top court to decide future of PM Imran Khan