ISLAMABAD, April 7: The Supreme Court of Pakistan Thursday set aside deputy speaker’s ruling to dismiss the no-trust resolution against Prime Minister Imran and the subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly by the President on the PM’s advice.
All five judges unanimously voting 5-0 against it.
The Supreme Court also ordered to hold the voting on the no-trust motion on April 9.
Supreme Court of Pakistan also summoned Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan as it had reserved its verdict on a suo motu case concerning the legality of the deputy speaker’s ruling and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by the president on the PM’s advice that would be announced shortly.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has declared that the deputy speaker’s ruling to reject no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan was “wrong”.
The top judge, however, asked the lawyers to assist the court for “solution” in the future. “One thing is clear which is the deputy speaker’s ruling is wrong, what will be the next stem,” he inquired.
Justice Bandial said that the five-judge larger bench will pronounce its verdict on the rejection of the no-confidence motion after Iftari at 7:30 pm today.
During the hearing, the CJ mentioned that the court will have to look after the national interest.
Earlier, the Supreme Court judges gave a pretty hard time to the lawyers of president, prime minister and speaker who defended the National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling rejecting no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that apparently constitution was violated in the Assembly. “If the voting had been allowed, then it would have become clear who is the prime minister. Prime Minister cannot dissolve the assembly if a no-confidence motion is tabled. What would be the consequences if the prime minister violates Article 58,” the CJP asked.
The top judge remarked anyone who is losing a no-trust vote tomorrow can opt for new elections.
Justice Bandial said “There is no crisis in the country. Billions are spent on the new elections and the country also passes from a tough situation during the 90 days. We should think of the country.”
A five-member larger bench of the SC, headed by the CJP, heard the case. The judges on the bench are Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ejazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel observed that the court could not sit mum if there was a violation of the constitution. Is the no-trust issue not affecting the public? Is there any protection for unconstitutional steps? Do we sitting here let such unconstitutional steps go by?”
Justice Mandokhel further asked can the prime minister advise the president dissolution if the majority of the assembly oppose it?
Justice Mandokhel also pointed out that the minutes of the parliamentary committee meeting, which were submitted to court by speaker’s lawyer Naeem Bukhari, didn’t prove if the deputy speaker was present. Continuing, Justice Mandokhel asked whether the foreign minister was present during the parliamentary committee meeting, noting that his signature was not included in the record.
“Shouldn’t the foreign minister have been present?” the judge asked, which prompted the lawyer to admit the minister should have been present.
At this, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial pointed out that Moeed Yusuf’s name was also not included in the record.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said the assembly could have reversed the deputy speaker’s ruling had it not been dissolved. “Prime Minister cashed in on the opportunity and dissolve the assembly,” he added.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked was the prime minister aware of the deputy speaker’s ruling that he was sitting ready to address the nation. “It was not in speaker’s powers to rejected no-trust move through ruling,” he added.
He asked was not it like that the written ruling was given to the deputy speaker. “The deputy speaker gave the ruling but how come it carried the signature of the speaker,” he baffled.
Justice Muneeb further asked why the voting was not conducted after the ruling?
Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan, in his arguments, prayed to the court to order general elections in the country. “There are several options before the apex court,” the AGP said.
He was of the view that the court should arrange an in-camera hearing in which he could inform it of details of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security meeting since disclosing them in the courtroom was not appropriate.
Similarly, AGP Khan went on to say, military officials had also attended the National Security Committee (NSC) meeting, and if minutes of the meeting were leaked right here in front of the people, it might have negative repercussions for the country’s security as well as the foreign policy. “Some very sensitive issues were discussed at the NSC meeting,” he told the court.
The AGP argued that in the light of the constitution, a prime minister had the right to dissolve the assemblies.
However, when the chief justice remarked that it was now settled that the deputy speaker’s ruling was not ‘justified’, the AGP seconded him and said he did not defend his ruling either.
Speaking on the occasion, Advocate Naeem Bukhari, representing both NA Speaker Asad Qaiser and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri, said he would not take much time and would complete his arguments as early as possible. “I would like to rely on Barrister Ali Zafar’s arguments instead,” he added.
He said now when general elections had been announced and the ball was in people’s court, the Supreme Court should not hear the deputy speaker’s ruling case.
When Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked whether there was any instance of the rejection of a no-trust motion on a ‘point of order’, Bukhari replied, “Yes, there was.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired from him as to what was his opinion if the NA speaker does not allow voting on the motion. “Is that not a violation of the constitution?” he questioned.
Speaker’s lawyer responded that there was an instance of the National Assembly’s dissolution, which was later declared unconstitutional by the court, but the elections were still held.
Bukhari, on the occasion, submitted to the SC minutes of Parliamentary Committee on National Security meeting.
The chief justice said these were only the minutes. “Where are the names of those who had attended the meeting as well as those who gave the briefing?” he asked.
Bukhari replied that total 29 people had been invited to the meeting.
CJP remarked that the names of those who had briefed the participants of the meeting were missing.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel inquired as to whether Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was present at the meeting. – NNI
- Latest
- Trending
