KARACHI: The Sindh Bar Council on Monday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against dismissal of no confidence motion against the prime minister and dissolution of National Assembly.
The SBC submitted in the petition that a series of unconstitutional acts were taken by the deputy speaker, prime minster and other government officials during the no-confidence move against the prime minster in the National Assembly. The SBC members submitted that the NA session was presided over by the deputy speaker on March 28 when leave was sought by opposition leader Mian Shehbaz Sharif to move the resolution for vote of no-confidence under Article 95(1) of the Constitution.
They submitted that 161 members rose in favour of the said motion and consequently, the deputy speaker allotted March 31 for the discussion on the said resolution but the session was again prorogued for April 3. On that day, the deputy speaker allowed Law Minister Fawad Chaudhry, who alleged that the proceedings of no-confidence have nexus with the efforts of the foreign state to bring about a change of government and, therefore, the constitutionality of such motion shall first be decided in the light of Article 5 of the Constitution.
The deputy speaker, without even allowing anyone to debate on the issue, started reading his purported decision and in blatant violation of the Constitution, dismissed the resolution on the ground that the resolution for vote of no confidence was moved in violation of Article 5 of the Constitution. They said that after the NA session, the prime minister appeared on national TV and advised the president to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58 of the Constitution and moments afterwards the president unconstitutionally dissolved the National Assembly allowing PM to continue in office.
They said that actions of the prime minster, president of Pakistan, speaker and deputy speaker of National Assembly appeared to be preplanned and collusive and the same were illegal and without legal authority.
The instant case requires the intervention of the Supreme Court as a vote of no-confidence is a constitutional right and the speaker, being the custodian of the house, has to remain impartial and act strictly in accordance with the law. The series of actions, they said apparently show a collusive behavior between the speaker, deputy speaker, prime minister, law minister and the president of Pakistan to save the incumbent government.
They submitted that it is the first time in Pakistan’s history a vote of no-confidence has been rejected on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution, that also on a mere allegation of foreign conspiracy. They submitted that Article 58 categorically excludes the incumbent prime minister from advising the president to dissolve the assembly before no-confidence motion and therefore any such advice is liable to be treated as null and void and any directions/orders passed by the president are liable to be treated as void ab initio.
They submitted the deputy speaker had to merely ensure that the vote of no-confidence takes place within the period stipulated under Article 95(2) of the Constitution and has no jurisdiction to refuse a no confidence resolution.
The deputy speaker, they submitted, has further violated Rule 37(8) by proroguing the session of NA before disposing off the no-confidence resolution. The speaker/deputy speaker does not have the jurisdiction to make factual determination as to whether any motion is part of a foreign conspiracy. They submitted that the parliamentarians cannot be denied their right to vote on a motion in the NA on allegations of disloyalty to Pakistan.
The court was requested to declare the decision/ruling of the speaker and deputy speaker was unconstitutional and no confidence resolution is deemed to be pending and direct the speaker to conduct voting immediately in accordance with Article 95 of the Constitution.
They also requested the court to declare that the incumbent prime minister could not have advised the President to dissolve the National Assembly and consequently, all actions of the president on said advise are void ab initio.
