close
Friday March 29, 2024

Petitioner challenges SC’s authority to remove PM

By Sohail Khan
September 21, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was requested on Tuesday to restore the federal structure of Pakistan and the federal government, which allegedly suffered serious damage in the wake of its July 28 judgment in the Panama Papers case, disqualifying former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for not being honest.

Shahid Orakzai filed a petition in the apex court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, making the chief justice, the president and the attorney general as respondents.

The petitioner contended that the whole of Pakistan was literally shocked when a five-member Supreme Court bench abruptly disqualified the prime minister in utter disregard of Article 1 of the Constitution which insisted “Pakistan shall be Federal Republic”.

Citing various articles of the Constitution, he questioned as to whether the country’s top court could dismiss the federal government formed under Articles 90, 91, 92 and 93 by exercising the power using Article 184 (3) to enforce a fundamental right.

The July 28 verdict in Panama Papers case virtually jolted the Republic, creating total administrative vacuum and paralysing the Parliament while major constitutional functions, stretching from Article 50 to Article 100, were suddenly suspended, the petitioner submitted.

He prayed the court to constitute a seven-member larger bench, excluding the five judges who signed the final order, to address the damage done to the federal structure of the Republic.

Orakzai further requested the court to declare that preservation of the federal structure of Pakistan was the foremost jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and shall always take precedence over the power of the court to enforce any fundamental Right.

Similarly, he further prayed that the federal structure of Pakistan should be restored by reinstating the MNA from NA-120 with effect from July 28.

The petitioner asked the court to suspend the operation of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the final order and instruct the National Accountability Bureau/ accountability courts to withhold the references until the restoration of the federal government as it was on July 27, 2017.

The petitioner contended that the 341 members of the National Assembly were completely disarrayed and none could even think of requisitioning the House to elect the next prime minister.

The verdict practically treated the prime minister like any other MNA, that was improper, and the material assets and financial transactions of Nawaz’s family overseas became more important than his given state functions, Orakzai submitted.

He contended that neither the Parliament nor the Supreme Court could change the federal structure of Pakistan. “The court’s July 28 order admits that the ‘democratic process’ is interrupted, or disrupted, and ‘all necessary steps’ shall be taken by the President,” the petitioner submitted adding that the court, notably, did not stipulate a single step to be taken nor did specify the Article or Clause which would “ensure continuation of the democratic process”.

“Neither the author of the judgment nor the signatories of the final could order the President of Pakistan to attend to his duties/functions in consequence of the judgment”, the petitioner contended.

Orakzai said the president was oath bound to call a session of the National Assembly under Clause (2) of Article 58 but only after a no-confidence resolution had been passed against the prime minister and that did not happen on July 28, so under what provision of the Constitution, the president was bound to find another prime minister.

“The Constitution, on the other hand, does suspend the ‘democratic process’ in a province for up to six months but does not afford any action against the federal structure as occurred on July 28,” the petitioner maintained.