Connect with us

Politics

Elahi’s petition against Mazari’s ruling: SC proceedings via video link underway

Published

on

  • Pervez Elahi challenges Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari’s ruling.
  • Deputy speaker rejected 10 PML-Q votes, dealing a major blow to Pervez Elahi.
  • Case being heard at Supreme Court (Lahore Registry).

LAHORE: The Supreme Court is hearing PML-Q leader Pervez Elahi’s petition against Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari’s ruling in the Punjab chief minister’s election and has decided to conduct proceedings via video link.

The decision was made after the courtroom door was damaged following a rush of people trying to get through.

The video link room has been opened and only the respondents’ lawyers will now be allowed to be present in person.

The media is not allowed to enter the courtroom.

A three-member bench — headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — is holding the hearing at the Supreme Court’s Lahore registry.

The court had summoned Mazari, and sent notices to Chief Minister Punjab Hamza Shahbaz, the Punjab chief secretary and the advocate general for Punjab.

Barristers Ali Zafar, Imtiaz Siddiqui, and Safdar Shaheen Advocate have appeared on behalf of Elahi, while Advocate Mansoor Usman Awan is representing Hamza Shahbaz.

Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari is being represented by Advocate Irfan Qadir.

Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman and Advocate General Punjab Shahzad Shaukat have appeared for judicial assistance.

Among PTI leaders in the courtroom are Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Asad Umar, Fawad Chaudhary, Umar Ayub, Zulfi Bukhari, Sibtain Khan, Umar Sarfraz Cheema, Usman Buzdar and Andalib Abbas.

The top court also sent notices to Chief Minister Punjab Hamza Shahbaz, the Punjab chief secretary and the advocate general for Punjab.

As the hearing began, the chief justice asked Mazari’s lawyer if he has the waqalat naama (power of attorney) for Mazari, to which Advocate Qadir replied in the affirmative.

The first half of the hearing

Prior to the court being adjourned in the morning, PTI’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar informed the court that during yesterday’s Punjab Assembly session, re-election of the province’s chief minister took place.

Justice Ahsan asked the lawyer how many lawmakers were present during the session, to which he responded that 370 members of the assembly were in attendance.

Zafar argued that Elahi secured 186 votes and Hamza bagged 179 votes, therefore, in line with the Constitution of Pakistan, the PML-Q leader is the chief minister.

The SC’s opinion in the May order, Zafar said, states that the parliamentary party can give directions to lawmakers on whom to vote for, and the PML-Q’s parliamentary party decided to back Elahi, but despite that, Mazari dismissed 10 PML-Q votes.

“They ignored the parliamentary party’s decision,” Zafar said.

At this, the chief justice said that all the relevant parties — deputy speaker, chief minister, and Punjab attorney-general — should be issued notices so they can provide their version.

“We wish to personally hear from the deputy speaker. Only the deputy speaker can tell us which paragraph he was referring to,” Justice Bandial said.

CJP Bandial said that the deputy speaker should come to the court with all the relevant documents and not be “frightened” as this is “just a legal procedure”.

The CJP then adjourned the hearing till 2:30pm.

Later a short order was issued by the court.

“The matter in issue seems more likely to be a controversy regarding the proper understanding or comprehension of the statement of law in our aforesaid judgement (paragraph 3 in Article 63A’s order) rather than of interpretation as such of a constitutional provision,” the short written order read.

PML-N demands full bench hear petition

In a press conference shortly after the hearing started, senior PML-N leader Ataullah Tarar demanded that since this is a matter related to the interpretation of the Constitution, a full bench should hear the petition.

Senior PML-N leader Ataullah Tarar speaks to journalists in Lahore, on July 23, 2022. — YouTube/PTVNewsLive
Senior PML-N leader Ataullah Tarar speaks to journalists in Lahore, on July 23, 2022. — YouTube/PTVNewsLive

The PML-N leader said that court hearings related to constitutional matters that have taken place recently — since the no-confidence motion against ex-prime minister Imran Khan — warrant a full bench.

“Therefore, with the utmost respect, I request that a full bench be constituted to hear this case as well,” the PML-N leader said.

Lashing out at the PTI, Tarar asked how the people who were responsible for the ongoing constitutional crisis could justifiably approach the Supreme Court to resolve their issues.

Later, a joint statement was issued by the coalition parties, urging the chief justice to constitute a full bench to hear the case.

What Mazari did

The deputy speaker rejected 10 votes of the PML-Q, citing the apex court’s opinion in the presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63A, dealing a major blow to Pervez Elahi and paving the way for Hamza Shahbaz to retain the chief minister’s slot.

Opposition (PTI and PML-Q) candidate Elahi managed to receive 186 votes, but after the deputy speaker’s ruling, the PML-Q leader got only 176 votes, whereas Hamza received 179 votes.

The petition was filed late last night after the Opposition — which was confident of a victory — suffered the setback and vowed to challenge the ruling.

SC order on Article 63(A)

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, back in May, had ruled that the votes of dissident members of the Parliament (MPs), cast against their parliamentary party’s directives, cannot be counted.

The apex court, issuing its verdict on the presidential reference seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution related to defecting lawmakers of the PTI, said that the law cannot be interpreted in isolation.

During yesterday’s ruling, Article 63(A) was applied after PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain wrote a letter to the deputy speaker, saying that he had directed the party to vote for Hamza Shahbaz.

The ruling has invited criticism from legal wizards as several believe that Mazari’s decision was not in line with the Supreme Court’s order.

Latest News

Today, 190 million pounds in NAB reference cases and cypher will be heard by the IHC.

Published

on

By

The founder of Pakistan, Tehreek e Insaf (PTI), has filed a bail petition against a 190 million-pound NAB reference, and the Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to hold a hearing today.

Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the IHC and Justice Tariq Mehmmod Jahangiri, the other member of the two-member bench, will hear the matter promptly at 12 p.m.

Presenting the arguments before the court will be the prosecutor from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) during the hearings.

In addition, today is scheduled for the hearing of the petitions filed by Shah Mehmood Qureshi and PTI founder Imran Khan opposing indictment in the cypher case.

At precisely 2 pm, the cypher case hearing will be presided over by a second two-member bench made up of CJ Aamer Farooq and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb.

Here, the prosecution’s arguments will be made in front of the bench by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) prosecutor.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

To discuss privatisation with the government, Bilawal establishes a committee.

Published

on

By

Chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has formed a committee to discuss privatisation concerns with the government.

Sherry Rehman, Syed Naveed Qamar, and Saleem Mandviwalla are among the committee members, according to a notification released by the PPP Chairman’s Secretariat.

The coalition administration has already established a panel to actively pursue the privatisation of state-owned firms (SOEs), such as Pakistan Steel Mills and Pakistan International Airlines.

To allow the government to sell PIA’s fifty-one percent of the company, the Privatisation Commission called for bids from interested parties in April.

Continue Reading

Pakistan

Supreme Court halts PHC and ECP decisions regarding reserved seats

Published

on

By

On Monday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Peshawar High Court (PHC) were suspended by the Supreme Court, even as they accepted the plea of the Sunni Ittehad Council for a hearing. The ECP had decided to award the reserved seats of SIC to other political parties.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the people’s mandate should be appropriately represented in the Parliament as the proceedings resumed following a short interim.

Let me explain what the Election Commission has truly done, stated the Council of the ECP. We only dispersed the reserved seats once. No new distribution of them was made.

The court, Justice Shah said, was more interested in following the Constitution than in what the Election Commission had done. Giving other parties more seats isn’t it against the idea of proportionality, Justice Shah questioned.

Seats were unfairly awarded to other parties, according to Justice Athar Minallah. Even after losing the electoral symbol, a party could still run for office, according to his observation.

In order to determine whether the case would be handled by the same bench or a larger bench would be established to hear it, the Supreme Court then forwarded the reserved seat subject to the Judges Committee.

The Pakistani Election Commission received applications from the opposing parties on March 4 and decided to utilise a proportional representation process to assign seats to political parties based on the number of seats each party won. This meant that seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies would not remain empty.

The PTI-backed SIC lost 77 reserved seats as a result of the development, including two women’s seats in the Sindh Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the National Assembly, twenty women’s seats in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, and twenty-seven women’s seats in the Punjab Assembly; all totaling twenty-three seats.

Additionally, pleas for women’s and minorities’ reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) were denied by the Peshawar High Court.In its challenge, the party said that SIC should not have been granted reserved seats for women and minorities by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Previous steps

In a case involving the refusal to provide the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) reserved seats, the appeal court had previously dismissed the federal government’s challenge to the three-member bench.

An appeal for reserved seats submitted by the Sunni Ittehad Council is being heard by a three-judge panel led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and including Justices Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah.

The federal government asked the court to form a larger bench so that more people could hear the matter when the hearing got underway. Adviser General Aamir Rahman, speaking for the federal government, stated that the appeals could only be heard by a larger bench. But the objection on the bench was dismissed by the court.

Situated on reserved seats, the female parliamentarians expressed disapproval of the bench as well. Under the Practice and Procedures Act, only a five-member bench could hear the issue, according to the attorney for the female parliamentarians. The dispute involved the interpretation of Article 51 of the Constitution.

Under Article 185 of the Constitution, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the current case was being handled as an appeal. Under Article 184/3, the current case was not filed. Court decisions on the admissibility of appeals were left up to the court, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

In addition, he said, a larger bench may be assembled to hear the case if it was determined that the case could be maintained.

Arguments made by Faisal Siddiqui the Advocate

Prominent Sunni Ittehad Council lawyer Faisal Siddiqui began putting forth the points. Following the February 8 general elections, Siddiqui announced that PTI’s returned candidates became members of the Sunni Ittehad Council.

There were still seven candidates in the National Assembly who had independent status, according to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
If PTI was a registered political party, Justice Athar Minallah questioned.

Siddiqui, the advocate, confirmed that PTI was a legally recognised political party. Although it wasn’t present during the election, Justice Shah noted that it was a registered political party.

Can you tell me how many days independent members have to join a party? said Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. A political party must be joined by independent members of the National Assembly within three days, according to Siddiqui. Justice Minallah asked,

“Will candidates of a political party forfeit their right to represent if the party lacks an electoral symbol?” A political party might transform into a parliamentary party by running for office, Siddiqui informed the court.

There is also the case where a political party holds elections yet does not allow its successful candidates to leave. What mechanism is used to allocate reserved seats among political parties, Justice Shah inquired?

Justice Shah enquired, “Will the political party take reserved seats according to the number of seats won or can it take more? According to Siddiqui, no political party is allowed to have more reserved seats than their share.

After upon, the Supreme Court quickly postponed the case hearing till 11:30 while summoning Election Commission representatives with documentation.

Continue Reading

Trending