Senate session prorogued on opposition’s request

ISLAMABAD: The Senate session Tuesday, summoned on the requisition of the joint opposition, was prorogued within a few minutes after the Leader of Opposition Raja Zafarul Haq said they did not want discussion but voting on their no-trust motion, demanding prorogation of the session.

Opposition parties had submitted the requisition for taking up resolution for no-trust motion against the Senate Chairman Muhammad Sadiq Sanjrani on July 09 and the requisitioned session was called for July 23. However, Sanjrani, who was presiding over the session, following the announcement of panel of presiding officers and taking nod of the House on leave applications of some legislators, took up the agenda item on a motion under Rule 218 for discussion.

As the chair gave floor to the leader of opposition, he straight away contended that they (opposition) had filed a motion that the House be called for voting on the Senate chairman and a discussion on the no-trust motion. “But the reply from your side was that voting could not be done this way and we gave reply to it as well. However, instead of proceeding on our request, our motion was listed under Rule 218 for discussion,” he contended. He continued, “We understand that there can neither be discussion under Rule 218 nor we intend to take part in it. Therefore, I will demand that since the date for voting has been announced already on August 01, therefore, the session be prorogued.”

Leader of the House Syed Shibli Faraz was on his feet to respond to Raja Zafarul Haq but had to face slogans from some opposition senators. But when given the floor, he thanked the leader of opposition and supported him for upholding the House traditions and whatever he said.

To this Senate chairman read out the prorogation order but not without referring to his ruling, he got drafted in his chamber and read out last few lines. He asked the Senate Secretariat that the copies of his ruling be circulated among all the Senate members.

In his three-page ruling in Urdu, he contended that apprehensions were being spread with regards to seeking permission for presenting a resolution for removal of chairman or deputy chairman. He also cited Article 54 (3) in this context and said these apprehensions were being spread notwithstanding the Constitution, the Senate rules and standing orders and the chairman’s ruling in 2016 was quite clear.

He said that the notice for tabling a motion for removal of chairman or deputy chairman could be issued during an ongoing session only. He added that that was why he did not allow a motion for removal of chairman or deputy chairman today (in the requisitioned session).