A Pashtun student challenged eligibility and qualification of PTM leader and MNA Ali Wazir for doing provocative speech against state institutions and desecration of national flag
ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint/Pakistan Point News-March 14th, 2020) A constitutional petition was moved to Islamabad High Court seeking disqualification of Pakistan Tahafuz Movement (PTM) leader and Member of National Assembly Ali Wazir for doing provocative speech against state institutions and desecration of national flag.
Abul Wali, a resident of Mohmand Agency, moved the petition through Advocate Khurram Shehzad Chughtai against Pakistan Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and its leader and MNA Muhammad Ali Wazir over his contemptuous speech against state institutions. The petitioner who is also a student of law submitted that PTM is a political rights movement emerged as a Pashtun rights-based movement. After assassination of Naqeebullah Mehsud, he said three main leaders of the PTM contested for the National Assembly seats from their respective tribal districts in the general election 2018. Ali Wazir is member of National Assembly from NA-50 (TribalArea-XI) elected with 23530 votes of his constituency and being member of the National Assembly, he holds parliamentary positions as Member of Standing Committee for States and Frontier Regions and Non-ministerial Standing Committee Rules of Procedure and Privileges. He said he hailed from Ahmedzai Wazir tribe of South Waziristan Agency. His father Malik Mirza Alam Wazir was the Chief of the Ahmedzai Wazir tribe. The Respondent is a Law Graduate (LLB) from Gomal University. MNA Ali Wazir, he said, was also offered Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) ticket by Mr. Imran Khan from his Constituency which he declined, following which Imran Khan decided not to field a candidate against him in the constituency. The petitioner said that PTI leader Ali Wazir was launched by a self-styled human rights activist with questionable credentials Manzoor Pashteen allegedly to address the many grievances of Pashtuns, who are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan and mostly live in the north-western part of the country, close to the Afghanistan border. He said that unfortunately PTM is creating state disloyalty rhetoric in Pakistan. “One slogan that they commonly use is "Yeh jo dehshatgardi hai, is ke peechay wardi hai" (behind this terrorism, is the [military] uniform), alleging a collusion between terrorists and the members of armed forces. On March 3, 2020, a video clip of MNA Ali Wazir went viral on Social Media wherein he was seen using offensive statements against Pakistan, its functionaries, denied neutrality of all state institutions, used insulting and provocative words against the armed forces by asking United States to destroy the “real terrorism factories in GHQ, Islamabad,Rawalpindi and Lahore,”.
The petitioner said that the respondent acted by inviting foreign aggression against the State of Pakistan. His words, he said, had clear effect of disloyalty to the State leading to rebellion and outbreak of forcible resistance against the state and the armed forces. The respondent clearly violated his fundamental obligation of loyalty with Pakistan, breached constitutional bond along with violation of his oath of allegiance with the state as a citizen and as a Member of the Parliament. The petitioner said that PTM leader was habitually and continuously promoting and inciting disharmony, enmity and hatred between ethnic Pashtun and other ethnic groups and institutions of the country. Ali Wazir was also repeatedly found to be fomenting hatred against the armed forces on racial and ethical grounds which is evident from his speech and tweets. His tweets also expressed his sheer hatred against the present governments and the superior judiciary. He often adopted an indirect approach to target Pakistan Army and its key position holders besides frequently instigating the general public to resist the state institutions and encouraged violence towards confrontation with the security forces by taking law into their hands. The petitioner further stated that PTM leader delivered speeches, addressed to large numbers of the general public with inflammatory, provocative or abusive statements as these have the effect of fanning the flames and was regularly pushing out hate propaganda in writing, actions and speeches. Freedom of speech and expression is cherished by the people of Pakistan guaranteed as it is under the Constitution, however, there is no place in the public discourse to propagate the commission of an offence or to incite people to resort to violence against the State, its citizens and the functionaries. But PTM leader, he said, was encouraging violence, extremism, militancy and/or hatred and was involved in propagating views which maligned the armed forces of Pakistan by projecting the armed forces of Pakistan as something wholly apart from the executive and, as if they were not, subject to the Constitution. He argued that every citizen is constitutionally bound to remain loyal to and to uphold the Constitution but the respondent failed to discharge his fundamental duty to be a citizen of Pakistan as he is constantly instigating the Pashtuns against the state and failed to obey the law and the Constitution hence is liable to be disqualified from the membership of the parliament. He asked the court that PTM leader Ali Wazir was found to be undermining the national cohesion during the course of recent Indo-Pak altercations while his statements and actions as member of the parliament held the potential of supplementing the Indian narration at a critical time. Thus, he said, he violated the “oath of the office administered to him as a Member of the Parliament under the Constitution. He also told the court that Ali Wazir committed constitutionally treasonous words for the parliament and the parliamentarian in a press conference. The petitioner prayed to the court to determine the status of PTM and declare the acts and deeds of its leader MNA Ali Wazir as contravention to the interest and integrity of the state for violating oath of office so sworn along with his contemptuous remarks against the judiciary entailing his disqualification in view of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
