SC resumes hearing on NA deputy speaker’s ruling

The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the suo motu notice — taken by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial — on the events of April 3 when National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Shah Suri dismissed the no-confidence motion against the prime minister and President Dr Alvi dissolved the NA on the premier’s advice.

A five-member bench, headed by the CJP and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, took up the case a little after noon.

On Tuesday, the petitioner’s side — joint opposition — completed their arguments. Today, government’s lawyers Dr Babar Awan, Senator Ali Zafar and Imtiaz Siddiqui will present their case.

During yesterday’s hearing, CJP Bandial had said that the apex court would not interfere in matter of the state and foreign policy and would only determine the legality of the deputy speaker’s ruling.

His remarks had come after PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan suggested that the court hold an “in-camera briefing about the foreign conspiracy from the intelligence chief”. Khan’s proposal was made in the backdrop of the invocation of Article 5 by the deputy speaker while proroguing the house without holding a vote on the no-confidence resolution.

“Right now we are looking at the law and Constitution,” the CJP had replied, adding that all the respondents would be told to focus on this matter at the moment and subsequently sought records of NA proceedings on the no-trust motion.

Meanwhile, PPP Senator Raza Rabbani described the abrupt prorogation and dissolution of the national assembly as “civilian coup in hybrid system” during his arguments. Subsequently, he had demanded the restoration of status quo as before the April 3 NA session.

He argued that on more than one occasion, when the house was in session, it was shown that the prime minister had lost the majority, adding that it was a matter of record that Imran Khan had said that he was given three options: face the vote of no-confidence, resign or hold early elections.

Rabbani had also requested the apex court to summon the original text of the purported ‘threatening’ cable and the minutes of the meeting of the National Security Committee that condemned it.

He said that independent proceedings should be initiated, which may include the formation of a judicial commission, to examine the veracity of the allegations.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, who was representing Shehbaz Sharif, claimed that the deputy speaker’s April 3 ruling was “manifestly illegal and a constitutional violation of gravest kind”, rather than a simple procedural lapse. Therefore, he maintained that the Supreme Court had every right to intervene in the matter.

The counsel argued that if the court came to the conclusion that the ruling of the deputy speaker and the subsequent prorogation of the assembly was unconstitutional and illegal, then all consequential actions, including the advice to President Arif Alvi to dissolve the assembly and the continuation of the incumbent Imran Khan as interim prime minister, as well as his nomination for appointment of a care taker prime minister, would be equally unconstitutional.

The bar under Article 69 that protects the speaker’s actions from being challenged in court, the counsel for Shehbaz Sharif argued, relates to procedural irregularities in parliamentary proceedings, adding that the apex court would invoke Article 54, which deals with the power of the speaker to summon and prorogue the assembly session, as a doctrine of condonation for procedural irregularities and not as a doctrine for legitimising constitutional wrongs.

Citing an example, the counsel argued that if a prime minister had no support left in the house except for the speaker, then Article 95 would become unworkable if he (the speaker) scuttles every move to remove the premier through a no-confidence motion.

“One can be the purest human being possible, but if he has no majority in the house, he cannot remain the prime minister,” the counsel argued.

During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the argument of the counsel was accepted, it would open the doors to the courts and there would be a writ on minor illegalities of the house every other day, thus undermining the dichotomy of power. Is this the intent of the Constitution, Justice Akhtar wondered?

‘Suggesting ex-CJP as caretaker attempt to influence SC’

At Tuesday’s hearing, former opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif’s lawyer argued that the nomination of a former CJP for the post of caretaker prime minister was “not only a blatant attempt to influence the court, but also smacks of mala fide and is in very poor taste”.

To this, the CJP replied: “Yes, you are right.”

On Monday, interim Prime Minister Imran Khan had nominated ex-CJP Gulzar Ahmed for the office of the caretaker PM.

The former CJP’s nomination followed a letter written by President Alvi to the prime minister and Shehbaz to propose names of suitable persons for appointment as caretaker premier under Article 224-A(1) of the Constitution.

Suo motu notice

On Sunday, CJP Bandial had taken suo motu notice of the situation after the deputy speaker’s dismissal of the no-confidence motion against the premier, clubbing multiple petitions filed by various parties with it.

After a brief hearing, a written order was issued which said the court 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 essentially 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 Article reads.

The court had also ordered all state functionaries and authorities — as well as political parties — to refrain from taking any advantage of the current situation and stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution.

Dismissal of no-trust motion

The weeks-long political turmoil in the country reached its climax on April 3 after the NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri prorogued a much-awaited session of the lower house of parliament without allowing voting on a no-trust motion against PM Imran.

Suri, who was chairing the session, dismissed the motion in a shock move, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution.

At the outset of the session, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s (PTI’s) Fawad Chaudhry took the floor and referred to the clause, reiterating the premier’s earlier claims that a foreign conspiracy was behind the move to oust the government.

“On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented,” he said, noting that this occurred a day before the opposition formally filed the no-trust move.

“We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan’s path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government,” he alleged.

The minister questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the constitutionality of the no-trust move.

At that, Suri noted that the motion, which was presented on March 8, should be in accordance with the law and the Constitution. “No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy,” he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were “valid”.

He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was “contradictory” to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

Dissolution of NA

Within minutes after the NA sitting, PM Imran, in an address to the nation, said he had advised the president to “dissolve assemblies”.

He also congratulated the nation for the no-trust motion being dismissed, saying the deputy speaker had “rejected the attempt of changing the regime [and] the foreign conspiracy”.

The premier further said he had written to the president with advice to dissolve the assemblies, adding that the democrats should go to the public and elections should be held so the people could decide who they wanted in power.

“Prepare for elections. No corrupt forces will decide what the future of the country will be. When the assemblies will be dissolved, the procedure for the next elections and the caretaker government will begin,” he added.

Subsequently, President Alvi dissolved the NA under Article 58 of the Constitution.

Later in the evening, the Cabinet Division issued a notification, declaring that Imran Khan ceased to hold the prime minister’s office with immediate effect. “Consequent upon dissolution of the National Assembly by the president of Pakistan, in terms of Article 58(1) read with Article 48(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan… Mr Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi ceases to hold the office of prime minister of Pakistan, with immediate effect,” it read.

However, later, the president issued a notification allowing him to continue as the prime minister:

“Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, shall continue as Prime Minister till the appointment of caretaker Prime Minister under Article 224 A (4) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”