NA goes on warpath after SC’s polls judgement

• Resolution assures prime minister of support in standoff with judiciary
• JUI-F rules out talks with Imran
• PTI describes ‘dangerous’ move as an attempt to influence court

ISLAMABAD: Through an unprecedented resolution, the National Assembly on Thursday not only “rejected” the April 4 verdict of the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench to hold elections in Punjab on May 14, but also “made it binding on Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and federal cabinet not to implement it”, as allies in the ruling coalition assured their full support to Mr Sharif in the ongoing standoff with judiciary.

Through the resolution, read out by Khalid Magsi of the Balochistan Awami Party and passed by the assembly with a majority vote, the lawmakers termed the verdict “unlawful and unconstitutional” and expressed “serious concerns over the court’s unwarranted interference in the political matters”, asking the judiciary to refrain from it.

PM Shehbaz, who briefly attended the proceedings, left the house shortly after the passage of the resolution, which was opposed by two members of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) — Mohsin Leghari and Mahmood Baqi Moulvi.

Resolution

“This House rejects the minority decision of the three-member bench and binds the prime minister and the cabinet not to implement the unconstitutional and unlawful decision,” says the resolution which was the second such resolution passed by the NA against the judiciary in the last nine days.

Referring to the March 28 resolution, it said the house had supported the majority decision of the four SC judges in the suo motu case and the court had been urged to implement it and avoid undue interference in political and administrative affairs.

“Most of the circles also demanded the formation of a full court, but it was not approved and the viewpoint of other political parties, except one, was not heard,” says the resolution.

The resolution supported the decision of the three-member SC bench under Justice Qazi Faez Isa which called for not setting the cases filed under Article 184(3) for hearing till the decisions on the full court meeting.

The lawmakers said they “viewed with deep concern the move to stop its implementation through the executive circular” and by “hastily fixing the same judicial decision for hearing before another controversial bench and giving a quick decision on it in a few minutes,” terming this step “unacceptable”.

“This House expresses serious concern over the misinterpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution as well as its rewriting by the judgement of the SC and demands review on it by the full court,” says the resolution.

PTI’s viewpoint

Taking the floor, Mr Leghari of PTI said treasury members were committing “collective contempt”, adding that treading the “dangerous path will not have good consequences”.

The MNA from Rajanpur protested against Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf for giving him the floor after the passage of the resolution, terming the act a violation of rules and traditions which allowed opponents of a resolution to express their viewpoint before putting it for a vote.

Mr Leghari alleged that the government was trying to pressurise the judiciary and constantly interfering in judicial matters.

“Do you want a war between judiciary and parliament?” he asked. Quoting from the Constitution and the assembly rules, he said members could not discuss sub judice matters.

When the speaker responded that they could hold a debate on the court’s decisions, the PTI legislator pointed out that the treasury members had been targeting the judiciary even before the announcement of the verdict.

‘War with judiciary’

Though the speaker had objected to the use of word “war” by Mr Leghari, Communications Minister and Jamiat UIema-i-Islam (JUI-F) member Asad Mehmood in his speech stated that the “judiciary had been on a war with the PML-N since 2014” when the PTI had staged a sit-in at D-Chowk against the then government under Nawaz Sharif.

Stating that the verdict showed that the judges were only interested to see elections in Punjab, the JUI-F leader said: “I want to say this to PML-N. You are the first target of this war. The war has been initiated against you [the PML-N].”

“This is a long war,” he said. Assuring his fullest support to Mr Sharif, he added: “We are not in any case ready to give our powers to the SC. We are not ready to give powers of PM and the Election Commission of Pakistan to the SC.”

No to dialogue

Responding to renewed offer by some PTI leaders for a dialogue, Mr Mehmood declared that his party would never sit on the table with Imran Khan who, he said, was a “criminal”.

“I want to say it categorically that we will not sit with Imran Khan for talks and to finalise a date for the elections. He is a criminal and should be tried under Article 6. This is the stance of my party. The judges had themselves declared that he [Imran] had violated the Constitution and today they [judges] have fallen in love with him,” said Mr Mehmood while referring to the judges’ advice that politicians should sit together.

He said they were getting messages asking them to hold talks with Mr Khan or “face similar verdicts,” stating that they would not talk to the person “who had committed crimes against Pakistan”.

“Such decisions will have to be reversed. The SC has started this dispute. This is a long battle which will continue till the victory of the Constitution and democracy,” he added.

Stating that the whole parliament was ready to face “contempt”, the JUI-F leader alleged that some judges had themselves committed the contempt of court against their own judges and they should be tried for it.

Sabir Qaimkhani of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) asked Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial to constitute a full bench, instead of forming “benches of like-minded judges”. Expressing concern over the alleged misuse of suo motu powers, he informed the house that former chief justices Iftikhar Chaudhry and Saqib Nisar took 79 and 49 suo motu notices, respectively, during their tenures.

Adviser to PM Qamar Zaman Kaira was of the view that chaos and uncertainty prevailing across the country were perpetrated under a well-designed plan and did not occur accidentally. While sharing his experience of witnessing the court’s proceedings, Mr Kaira claimed that the judges did not provide an opportunity to speak to the lawyers representing the government parties who remained present in the court for six days. He was of the view that the court should have first taken the notice of the dissolution of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies as the chief ministers did not have unconditional powers to dissolve the legislature.

Giving examples from history, Mr Kaira said the courts had restored the provincial assembly of Balochistan when it was dissolved by the then chief minister Zafarullah Jamali in 1988 and again in 1993, it had restored the Punjab Assembly which had been dissolved by ex-chief minister Manzoor Wattoo.

Constitutional court

Mr Kaira called for establishing a constitutional court in line with the Charter of Democracy signed between PPP and PML-N in 2006, saying that judges who reached the apex courts after only hearing the civil and criminal cases were unable to make decisions on constitutional matters.

It was the third consecutive day when the speaker allowed the members to deliver lengthy speeches on points of order, under which members can only point out violation of rules and seek the chair’s ruling.

Published in Dawn, April 7th, 2023