Karachi
The present 14th House of Sindh Assembly in the first three parliamentary years till May 28, 2016 held proper discussions on just four adjournment motions although its secretariat during this period had received 269 motions, mostly from the opposition lawmakers.
During the last and third parliamentary year, the provincial assembly failed to hold proper discussions on any of the adjournment motions submitted to the secretariat.
The large-scale disposal of these adjournment motions without discussing them has been a major cause of resentment among the opposition lawmakers who had prepared these motions after much study and homework. It should be recalled here that the adjournment motion is considered to be the most valid and effective parliamentary instrument to properly discuss in the House the pressing and current issues concerning the public at large.
As a settled parliamentary practice, usually the house allocates at least two hours for holding proper discussion on any adjournment motion after admitting it while adjourning consideration on rest of the agenda of the session.
Other than the adjournment motions, the lawmakers are supposed to raise the issues of public concern either through call-attention notices or points of order but in both these cases, the House only discussed such matters on a summary basis i.e. a concerned lawmaker is supposed to raise a public issue in the house after getting permission from the chair and then if need so arises any of the provincial minister concerned could respond to the point raised in the house.
In the case of an adjournment motion getting admitted, the house could hold a discussion on the issue raised in the motion in a proper manner with a number of lawmakers giving their viewpoint on the issue while from the government’s side a detailed response should also come at the end of the discussion, mostly by a senior minister or by parliamentary affairs minister, keeping in view points earlier raised in the speeches made by legislators.
“During these three parliamentary years, our colleague on the opposition benches worked hard to prepare these adjournment motions but the speaker using his power rejected them citing any technical reasons for example ‘the issue raised in the motion is not a recent occurrence or the issue has already been discussed in the house’,” said Shaharyar Khan Mahar, an opposition MPA of the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional who has also served as the opposition leader for some time in the current House.
He said on several occasions, adjournment motions were moved to become part of agenda of the session but after a deliberately delay of several weeks or months, the government set them aside insisting that the issue was not a recent occurrence.
Mahar is one of the lawmakers whose adjournment motion was admitted and later discussed by the House with proper allocation of time for holding debate by lawmakers.
In November 2014, the Sindh Assembly discussed the adjournment motion moved by him on the general law and order situation of the province. The other three adjournment motions discussed by the House with proper allocation of time in these three years included one related to drought and the health emergency situation in Thar, the water shortage situation in Karachi, and the discharge of untreated industrial effluent from Kotri Industrial area.
The PML-F legislator said that in certain instances the chair had treated these adjournment motions and rejected them without any fair deal as the house should have adopted the motions to approve these adjournment motions for holding proper discussion given the majority presence of opposition lawmakers in the house supporting such motions while treasury legislators were in minority at the time of consideration of these motions. “At all such instances, we pressed the chair to go for a head count while doing voting on these motions given the majority presence of opposition lawmakers but the chair went for the usual the voice vote on these motions to get them rejected by the house,” he said.
“I am hopeful that situation regarding adjournment motions could be improved in rest of the two parliamentary years of the current house if the chair and the treasury’s side in the assembly would show no bias and consider these motions in the most neutral manner,” said the opposition lawmaker.
The Rules of Procedure of the Sindh Assembly has detailed a chapter (chapter no 12) giving at least 15 conditions on basis of which any adjournment motion could be accepted or rejected by the house.
The condition on basis of which adjournment motions are mostly ruled out order by the chair included: the motion shall relate to one definite matter (as on a number of occasions more than one public issues are inadvertently raised in a single motion), the motion shall be restricted to a matter of recent occurrence, it shall not deal with a hypothetical case, and it shall not deal with any matter which is sub-judice.
According to the recently issued three years performance report of Sindh Assembly, the assembly secretariat during first parliamentary year from May 29, 2013 to May 28, 2014 received a total of 75 adjournment motions as only three of these motions could be admitted/discussed by the house, two of the motions were withdrawn, seven were ruled out of order, while 63 got lapsed/disposed of.
During second parliamentary year from May 29, 2014 to May 28, 2015, 98 of such motions were received, only one of them admitted/discussed by the house, three were withdrawn, 14 were ruled out of order, while 80 either got lapsed or disposed of. During third parliamentary year from May 29, 2015 to May 28, 2016, 96 motions were received, none of them got admitted or discussed by the house, one was withdrawn, 15 were ruled out of order, while 80 got lapsed or disposed of.
When contacted for her version, Sindh Assembly deputy speaker Shehla Raza said on several occasion during these three years, the House discussed in detail on merit and admissibility of the adjournment motions moved by the lawmakers. While the house discussed on merit and admissibility issue of these motions, it was found out that the issues raised in these motions or substance of the motions itself was in contravention to rules on basis of which decision has to be reached whether any adjournment motion could be admitted by the house for holding proper discussion, she said.
The deputy speaker said that in all such instances, the govt’s side acknowledged that issue raised in any of the adjournment motion did exist in reality but the issue in question didn’t meet the prescribed criteria so that the rest of the proceedings of the session should be adjourned to hold proper discussion on the matter. While discussing admissibility of such motions, sometimes govt gives assurance to look into the issue raised in the motion so motivating its mover to withdraw the motion.
Privilege motions
The situation regarding privilege motions moved mostly by opposition lawmakers in the during these three years is no more different – a total of 88 of such privilege motions were received by secretariat of the assembly in these three years, only 13 of them were later referred to committee of the house on rules and privileges for proper review of the motions, reports on three of such referred motions were later presented in the house, 11 such motions were ruled out of order, 12 motions were withdrawn by the lawmakers who moved them after getting satisfactory response or assurance by the govt on the issue raised in these motions, while 49 of such motions either got lapsed or disposed of.
