SC Adjourns Suo Motu Hearing On NA Proceedings Till Tomorrow

(@Abdulla99267510)

SC adjourns suo motu hearing on NA proceedings till tomorrow

The counsel representing the government presents his arguments before a SC five member bench.

ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint/Pakistan Point News-April 6th, 2022) The Supreme Court has adjourned till Thursday (tomorrow) the hearing of the suo motu case about dismissal of no-confidence motion in the National Assembly.

A five member larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial is hearing the case.

PTI Counsel Babar Awan submitted his arguments.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel are the other members of the bench.

During the proceedings, the CJP remarked that the Supreme Court wanted to wrap up the case today (Wednesday).

Advocate Azam Nazir Tarar, the counsel for PML-N, appeared before the court and argued that the Punjab advocate-general had assured to hold the provincial assembly session today.

“Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s directives are not being implemented.”

CJP Bandial remarked that a very important case is being heard in this court.

The CJP remarked, “We first want to wrap up the case on what happened in the NA on April 3,”.

Tarar, however, argued that Punjab Assembly's matter was the extension of Islamabad's case.

At this, the CJP remarked that negative statements are being made against the court and it is being said that the court is delaying the matter.

“We have to decide after listening to everyone's stance.[…] will look into Punjab assembly matter in the end.” CJP Bandial said that the court will ask the Punjab advocate-general under which law the Assembly session was adjourned.

Awan and counsels representing other respondents — PPP, PML-N, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Sindh High Court Bar, Attorney General of Pakistan and Advocate General of Punjab — had presented their arguments before the court in Tuesday's hearing as well. Awar objected to all the political parties in this case except MQM-P, PTM, Balochistan Awami Party and Jamat-e-Islami and Rah-e-Haq party.

He argued that “The political parties maintain that they have been declared traitors under Article 5 of the Constitution. […]. The court was asked to interpret Article 2.”

The CJP observed that no one had been termed a traitor in regard with Article 5 but the action taken under Article 5 had been stated as treason. He said that the Constitution was such a document in which the clauses and sections are read together.

The judge remarked, “There is a separate interpretation for Article 95,”.

Awan said that no one said a single word about Article 63A.

"They [Opposition] claim that they are trying to save the parliamentarian democracy. PML-N president [Shahbaz Sharif] demanded formation of a commission in a press conference that he addressed without reading the National Security Committee's ruling."

Awan argued that the joint Opposition wanted that the court issues a brief order in their favour, adding that the complainant parties want that reference to the National Security Committee in the ruling is ignored in this case.

A judgement passed by a British court was presented. I will tell that if it is relevant here or not.

“The Constitution of Pakistan has been formulated on the basis of Islamic point of view. Pakistan is different from other countries.” He maintained that the speaker and the deputy speaker could not stay silent over the “foreign conspiracy.”

"[NA] speaker and the deputy speaker are bound to fulfill their constitutional responsibility.”

The CJP remarked that accusations were made in this case and asked the lawyer to submit facts.

The top judge asked, “No-confidence motion is a constitutional process. Does the speaker have the authority to sabotage a constitutional process?”.

During the hearing, the PTI’s lawyer pleaded with the court for an in-camera hearing on the Lettergate.

At this, the attorney general said that a lawyer of a political party should not give arguments on foreign policy. The CJP while agreeing with the attorney general remarked that the court did not want to get involved in foreign policy matters.

Babar Awan asked the court to constitute a judicial commission to identify those who were involved in the attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty. He said that the controversial facts must be investigated, pointing out that the Memogate scandal proceedings were still pending. Awan told the court that PM Imran Khan did not want to speak about what he knew for the sake of Pakistan’s interest.

Justice Ahsan observed, “Investigation is necessary if the facts are controversial. [The] prime minister is not the investigator therefore this task should be done by relevant people,”.

Justice Ahsan also said, "You are basing your arguments on assumptions,".

CJP Bandial said that the court had to be briefed on parliamentary democracy.

"We have to conclude this case and complete the hearing soon."

The CJP directed Awan to share the related facts. He also asked where the word “national interest” is used in the NA speaker’s oath.

Awan while responding to the question said that national security, defence and loyalty were stated in the oath, which is considered as national interest.

The CJP meanwhile asked if Awan believes that the resolution of no-confidence could be dismissed without holding an election.

He remarked, “This is the first point that you raised in your arguments. You are saying that the NA Rules state that the no-trust motion can be rejected without voting,”.

He also remarked that the speaker could reject the motion only if he hasn’t granted leave. “Once the no-confidence motion is presented in court, it can be dismissed only through voting.”

Moreover, when asked if Rule 28 includes the deputy speaker, Awan refrained from making any comment.

Abdullah Hussain

Abdullah Hussain is a staff member who writes on politics, human rights, social issues and climate change.