— Justice Munib questions deputy speaker’s constitutional authority to pass the ruling
— Opposition deliberately didn’t attend parliamentary committee for security meeting: Justice Bandial
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing and ignored a plea by PPP’s counsel seeking the formation of a full court to hear the suo motu case pertaining to the ruling issued by the National Assembly deputy speaker which dismissed the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had earlier in the day said the court would issue a “reasonable order” on the issue today.
His remarks had come as a larger bench of the Supreme Court – comprising the CJP, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail — took up the matter.
During the proceedings, Justice Ahsan noted that there were violations in the proceedings of the no-trust resolution.
Justice Bandial observed that a debate before voting on the no-confidence motion had been clearly mentioned in the law but didn’t take place.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar questioned the deputy speaker’s constitutional authority to pass such a ruling.
“I don’t think the deputy speaker had the authority to pass such a ruling,” Justice Akhtar said, adding that only the speaker could do so.
“The deputy speaker only chairs the session on the non-availability of the speaker,” the judge said.
During his arguments, Farooq H. Naek, who was representing the PPP and other opposition parties, contended that the ‘threat letter’ on the basis of which the ruling was passed was never shown in parliament.
Here, the CJP observed that the deputy speaker’s ruling mentioned the meeting of the parliamentary committee for security. “The opposition deliberately didn’t attend the meeting,” he said, adding that the matter of the letter was put forth there.
“This needs to be answered by all political parties,” the CJP said, adding that the parliamentary committee meeting was important.
Naek pleaded the court to issue a verdict on the matter today, pointing out to the bench that the president had already asked for names to appoint as caretaker prime minister.
But Justice Ahsan said it was impossible to pass the verdict today, adding that the apex court’s decision would have far reaching outcomes. “We respect the opinions of political parties.”
“We can’t pass a decision in the air,” Justice Bandial said, adjourning the hearing till 12pm on Tuesday.
Earlier, Naek had urged the CJP to form a full court bench to hear the matter, saying that the case concerned complex matters of the law and therefore all judges of the apex court should sit on the bench.
The CJP, however, asked Naek if he had objections to any judge on the five-member bench. “If there is a lack of confidence in any of the judges, the bench will rise,” Justice Bandial said. To this, Naek said he had full confidence in all judges on the bench.
Justice Bandial said forming a full court bench would impede proceedings of other cases.
When PTI’s counsel Babar Awan took the rostrum, the chief justice said that he wanted to hear the petitioners first. “If you want to give a statement, you can,” Justice Bandial told Awan, who informed the court that the party was ready for the next election.
“The court will only review the speaker’s ruling, not political statements,” the chief justice remarked, reiterating that the court would give a “reasonable decision”.
Naek told the court that the requisition notice for the NA session and no-confidence motion were submitted on March 8. “The speaker was bound to convene the session within 14 days but the meeting was called on March 27,” he said.
However, Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the case did not concern when the NA session was summoned while Justice Akhtar said that the speaker had provided reasons for the delay. “You can argue whether the reasons provided were correct or incorrect,” Justice Akhtar told Naek.
Meanwhile, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan said they would implement whatever decision is given by the Supreme Court with regard to the ruling against the no-trust vote.
The attorney general was speaking after visiting the court to attend the hearing of a larger bench against the ruling of the deputy speaker to reject the no-confidence motion.
The court, after hearing the preliminary position on the petition issued notices to the AGP Khan, secretaries for the home and defence ministries.
The opposition had expected to take power on Sunday after mustering enough votes to oust Khan, but the National Assembly deputy speaker refused to allow the motion to proceed because of “foreign interference”.
Simultaneously, Khan asked the presidency — a largely ceremonial office — to dissolve the assembly, meaning an election must be held within 90 days.
On paper, and pending any court decision, Khan will remain in charge for at least two weeks, or until an interim government is formed to oversee elections.
On Sunday, the court had taken suo motu notice of the situation and after a brief hearing issued a written order in which the court said it would like to “examine whether such an action (dismissal of the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5) is protected by the ouster (removal from the court’s jurisdiction) contained in Article 69 of the Constitution.”
Article 69 of the Constitution restricts the court’s jurisdiction to exercise authority on a member or officer of Parliament with respect to the functions of regulating parliamentary proceedings or conducting business.
“No officer or member of Majlis-i-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-i-Shoora, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers,” clause two of the law reads.
The judges also ordered all state functionaries and authorities — as well as political parties — to refrain from taking any advantage of the situation and stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution.
They had also directed the interior and defence secretaries to brief it on the law and order situation.
According to the constitution, a prime minister cannot ask for the assembly to be dissolved while facing a no-confidence vote.
An alliance of usually feuding dynastic parties had plotted for weeks to unravel the tenuous coalition that made Khan prime minister in 2018, but he claimed they went too far by colluding with the United States for “regime change”.
