Negotiators sure they will bring MQM back

Islamabad
National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq is also taking guidance from and relying on a latest Islamabad High Court (IHC) judgment while deciding about the acceptance or otherwise of the resignations of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) lawmakers.
Meanwhile, heightened activities are afoot to prevail upon the MQM to retreat from its decision, and different political players have sprung in action.
Those involved in the exercise are confident to prevail upon the MQM to rethink its decision. Interestingly, the five demands – lifting embargo on the live telecast of Altaf Hussain’s telephonic addresses; ensuring an impartial operation; production of those arrested before courts; constitution of an oversight committee; and engaging in efforts for recovery of ‘missing’ MQM workers - put forward by the party did not call for cessation of the campaign against target killers, kidnappers for ransom, extortionists and mafias.
In April this year, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decided the then hottest issue - whether the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members of the National Assembly have resigned or not. The 37-page judgment was handed down by Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aamir Farooq.
It held that the IHC could usurp the powers of the speaker, and stressed that the political issues should be resolved at political platforms; the separation of powers among the pillars of the state is utmost necessary and every institution has got scars from the past that needs to be cured.
Former Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Senator Zafar Ali Shah had filed the petition praying that the PTI resignations were voluntary and genuine, and a declaration should be made to the effect.
Neither can this court usurp the powers vested in the speaker by the Constitution, nor make him go through the rigours of adducing evidence in the court, inevitably expressing our lack of respect for the office of the speaker and the representative forum of the people of Pakistan i.e. the National Assembly, the judgment reads.
“This is clearly hit by the doctrine of political question. The prayer and the petition have become infructuous as, admittedly, before the speaker could conclude the inquiry the resignations have been retracted, and have thus become ineffective and no more valid as has already been held.”
While dismissing the petition, the judges had held that neither was the petition maintainable nor did any matter placed before them require their intervention in the exercise of the powers and jurisdiction vested in them under Article 199 of the Constitution.
The IHC bench, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in A K Fazlul Qauder Chaudhry Vs Syed Shah Nawaz & others, noted that the apex court interpreted the duty of the speaker in the case of resignation tendered by an MP.
The IHC judges noted that they have no doubt in mind that the speaker had the right and duty under the Constitution to satisfy himself as to the genuineness and the validity of the resignation by a member, before it is allowed to take effect.
The ruling further referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court, and said that to resign is not a matter of right.
The IHC also mentioned the case of former prime minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, and observed that a seven member- bench of the Supreme Court decided the contempt of court case. Pursuant to that ruling, the then speaker gave her decision and the same was challenged before the apex court, culminating in the judgment titled Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and others Vs Federation of Pakistan, it said.
These judgments had been delivered in the context of determining the role of the speaker under Article 63(2) of the Constitution. The principles enunciated in them unambiguously elucidate that it is the exclusive domain of the speaker to apply his own mind judiciously.
Shah had also prayed to the court to direct the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to announce the schedule of by-elections, and restrain the National Assembly secretary from issuing the salaries to the PTI lawmakers.
He had contended that PTI members had verified their resignations for a number of times through the media. Article 64 is silent on the acceptance or rejection of the resignation tendered by an MP, he pointed out.