SC hearing on NA Speaker's ruling adjourned till tomorrow

ISLAMABAD: People’s Party’s Mian Raza Rabbani began his arguments on Tuesday before the Supreme Court’s five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, ARY News reported.

The bench also comprised of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.

During his arguments Raza Rabbani said, “Whatever has happened can only be called as civilian coup.”

“The opposition leader called for vote after the no-confidence motion approved in the house,” Rabbani said. “The session however adjourned despite the opposition’s plea after the motion was approved on March 28,” he said.

“On April 03 the federal minister submitted a motion without any evidence and the deputy speaker in his ruling declared all members violators of Article V. He even didn’t announce when he will issue a detailed ruling, neither he informed what is the basis of his ruling,” Rabbani argued.

“He had neither a court order nor any inquiry report with regard to the alleged conspiracy,” Raza Rabbani said.

“The court has to see, to which extent parliamentary proceedings have exemption,” he said. “What happened can only be called civilian martial law. The system itself prepared its alternate, which is unconstitutional,” Raza Rabbani argued.

Rabbani also pointed out 10 malicious steps in the process of rejection of the no-confidence motion.

“Speaker National Assembly had already written his ruling and kept it in the chamber. The federal minister tabled the resolution without any evidence or documentary support, thus the process of rejection of the no-trust motion should be declared void from the begining,” Rabbani said.

“The Prime Minister sent the summary for dissolution of the assembly to the President and he granted it approval without giving any consideration,” he argued.

“The voting on no-confidence motion could only be stopped after resignation of the prime minister,” Raza Rabbani said. “The President could have advised the PM to take the vote of confidence as the prime minister could not dissolve the assembly before voting on the motion”, he said. “Rules don’t allow the Speaker to cancel the motion without voting,” he argued. “By rejecting the motion Rule 37 has been violated,” Rabbani said.

“If the court declared the deputy speaker’s ruling accurate, a no-confidence motion could not be moved in future,” he said. “The court can review if the constitution has been violated,” he said.

“The ruling and Article V have no mutual relation. The deputy speaker interpreted Article V and enforced it on the members of the parliament,” he said.

“The Speaker’s ruling could be reviewed under Article 95 (ii),” the counsel argued.

“The constitution have a procedure for removing the prime minister, the PM can tender resignation, if losing majority he has to get confidence vote. If the no-trust motion tabled against him, he could not dissolve the assemblies,” he said.

He called the court to demand concerned diplomatic cable and the minutes of the National Security Committee for fact finding.

He pleaded to the court to declare the speaker’s ruling void and restore the assembly.

CJP Umar Ata Bandial said the apex court will announce decision after hearing all the parties.

After conclusion of Raza Rabbani’s arguments Makhdoom Ali Khan initiated his arguments over the case.

Chief Justice Bandial lauded Rabani for presenting ‘good and to the point’ arguments,”We were expecting for it” the CJP said.

Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that the no-confidence motion was submitted to the National Assembly with the signatures of 152 members while 161 had voted in favour of tabling it. “After that, proceedings were adjourned till March 31.”

As per the rules, the counsel pointed out, a debate on the no-trust move was supposed to be conducted on March 31. “But a debate was not held,” he said, adding that the voting was also not conducted on April 03.

“The case is rejection of no-trust motion by the deputy speaker, the issue is violation of the constitution and not the implementation of the assembly rules,” PML-N counsel said.

“The prime minister’s holding office despite losing the majority is violating the democratic spirit, question is the Speaker was authorized to prorogue the assembly sesssion,” Makhdoom Ali Khan said.

The PML-N’s counsel also said that the deputy speaker did not give the opposition opportunity to speak during the session held on April 3 and gave the floor to the minister.

Justice Akhtar said that the process of the no-confidence motion was underlined in the rules of procedure, not the Constitution. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that rules were formed on the basis of the Constitution.

On the question raised by Jutice Munib Akhtar over protection to the parliamentary proceedings under Article 69, PML-N lawyer said that an unconstitutional ruling from the Speaker have no protection of the Article 69.

After Makhdoom Ali Khan, Babar Awan representing the PTI, said that the steps are being taken for the caretaker government.

“You are the lawyer of PTI, how could you form the government,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel said. “I will reply the question tomorrow,” Babar Awan said.

“I will first talk over the Article 63-A,” Babar Awan said.

“As the Attorney General it is my last case,” Khalid Jawed Khan told the court. “I will only discuss the constitution and the law in the court,” AGP further said.

The court adjourned further hearing of the suo moto case on the deputy speaker’s ruling till 11:30 tomorrow.