Opposition rejects objections of Senate chairman

ISLAMABAD: The opposition in the Senate on Friday asked the Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani to resign as they have proven their majority in the Upper House.

The joint opposition responded to letter of Sadiq Sanjrani telling him that there was no provision in the Constitution which could bar them from taking up resolution of no-confidence against him.

“It is highly inappropriate and in violation of the rules and the Constitution, 1973, that, you as the chairman, Senate of Pakistan, should have written the letter under reply, as you cannot sit in your own cause,” the opposition said in a letter in response to the Senate chairman’s letter. The joint opposition’s letter has been signed by Opposition Leader in the Senate Raja Zafarul Haq, Sherry Rehman, Mir Hasil Bizenjo, Usman Kakar and Abdul Ghafoor Haideri.

The opposition’s joint candidate for the slot of Senate chairman Mir Hasil Bizenjo while addressing a press conference along with Sherry Rehman and others said the opposition has responded to the letter of Sadiq Sanjrani telling him that avoiding summoning the requisitioned session of the House would be violation of the Constitution.

The Senate chairman wrote a letter to the opposition on July 17 telling them that the resolution of no confidence could not be taken during the requisitioned session. He also asked the opposition senators to send agenda with the requisition.

The opposition’s letter also refers to paragraph (c) of clause 7 of Article 53 of the Constitution, read with Article 61, which provides that a vote of no confidence may be brought against the Senate chairman by giving not less than seven-day notice.

“The said constitutional provision provides a resolution of no confidence may be brought in the Senate by giving not less than seven days’ notice and if passed by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the House, the office of the chairman Senate shall stand vacated,” the letter said.

The opposition said that in the Senate chairman’s letter there is an admission that the motion for leave and the resolution has been circulated in compliance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of “the Rules, 2012”, therefore, the notice period provided under the Constitution and reiterated in “the Rules, 2012” i.e. of seven days has started to run.

Therefore, it said, to give compliance to the constitutional provisions, it is mandatory on the Senate secretary to place them on the orders of the day of the first session after the completion of seven-day notice period, be it a requisitioned session or a session summoned by the president.

The opposition said that in the Senate chairman’s letter, reliance is being placed on the ruling of the chair dated February 10, 2016, wherein, it is stated that any discussion on an agenda item provided for by the requisitioners, discussion will take place under a motion under Rule 218 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2012”.

“This perception is misplaced, in as much as, the said ruling deals with the agenda and orders of the day in which primacy is to be given to the agenda stated in the requisition,” the opposition’s letter said.