Why didn’t the deputy speaker object to the no-confidence motion on March 28 instead?: CJP Bandial

Why didn’t the deputy speaker object to the no-confidence motion on March 28 instead?: CJP Bandial

April 7, 2022 0

What happened:

On Apr 7, around 9:30 a.m., a five-member bench led by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, consisting of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, took up the case of no-confidence motion’s dismissal where CJP Bandial questioned Imran Khan’s lawyer, Imtiaz Siddiqui that why deputy speaker Qasim Suri didn’t oppose to no-confidence motion on March 28 but passed the verdict on April 3 instead.

Arif Alvi’s lawyer:

As the president’s lawyer, Zafar, ended his arguments, the CJP made his observation and questioned the counsel that why he wasn’t clarifying whether or not the country was in the midst of a constitutional crisis. The premier would be protected, Justice Miankhel asked, if the Constitution was breached in parliament. “Isn’t Parliament the Constitution’s guardian?” he inquired. He also wondered how justice would be served if someone was harmed as a result of parliamentary processes.

Referencing history:

The no-confidence motion and the election of the prime minister, according to Zafar, are both within the purview of Parliament. He also mentioned the case of former Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo, who was dismissed by ex-President Gen Ziaul Haq. “Junejo’s administration was disbanded, and the court pronounced it unlawful,” Zafar said, adding that the court had no say in what happened after the legislature was dissolved. However, Justice Miankhel stated that the topic at hand was the motion of no confidence. 

Imran Khan’s lawyer:

Imtiaz Siddiqui, the counsel for former Prime Minister Imran Khan, began by stating that the judiciary has never intervened with legislative processes before. “The subject at hand is NA proceedings. However, NA procedures are outside the scope of the judiciary’s jurisdiction, according to Article 69. Siddiqui added that the deputy speaker relied on the National Security Committee’s (NSC) assessment. 

As a result, the CJP inquired as to when the minutes of the NSC meeting would be provided to the deputy speaker. Siddiqui said he was uninformed of these facts which prompted the court to order the lawyer to refrain from arguing over matters he doesn’t know about.

What you need to know:

According to Justice Ahsan, the house might have suspended the deputy speaker’s ruling if the parliament had not been dissolved. He further claimed that “the prime minister took advantage of the situation and dissolved the assembly.”

Mahnoor Tariq
Mahnoor Tariq
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

16 + 12 =