Revisiting production orders

It's not unusual in Third World democracies that elected prime ministers try monopolizing state power by sidelining the parliamentary opposition. In this regard, Pakistan is no exception, either. Prime Minister Imran Khan doesn't feel comfortable with incarcerated Opposition MNAs, who courtesy the privilege to be produced in the House keep showing up and deliver hard-hitting speeches against his style of governance and policies. So, he has called for 'revisiting' the National Assembly rules that empower the Speaker to order production of a member under detention in civil and criminal proceedings. He doesn't want the members accused of indulging in corruption and money-laundering - and they include Asif Ali Zardari and Shahbaz Sharif - to take the floor. But his dilemma is that not only what he wants is against the rules that govern the conduct and business of the House it is also against the prevalent convention. Undeniably, irrespective of the cause for his/her detention every member has the right under the Constitution to attend the National Assembly proceedings. As Executive head Prime Minister Khan has no right to dictate the Legislative pillar of state. Let him think so. But the Speaker of the National Assembly should act in line with his constitutional obligation - which he hasn't. By sleeping over the Opposition's demand for production of detained members he, unlike his predecessors, has failed to vindicate his position as custodian of the House. In the 1990s, Speaker Gohar Ayub, did order production of Asif Ali Zardari in clear defiance of the then President Ghulam Ishaq Khan's call and Speaker Yousuf Raza Gilani risked his party leadership's displeasure by issuing order of production of opponents including Sheikh Rashid.
Under the Constitution a member of an elected house forfeits his/her membership if he/she is convicted by a court. But in this case, none of the members whose production in the house is demanded by the Opposition has been convicted; they are only facing investigation and trial. Is it then the possibility that the cases they face might have been cooked up to subvert their political loyalty, or tarnish their image or is it a case of personal vendetta? Since none of them is so far convicted and in the eyes of law is innocent and therefore retains his membership of the National Assembly the refusal to let him appear in the House would be nothing but a gross miscarriage of justice. Agreed, their detention under the National Accountability Ordinance is legal, but why a law that is inquisitional in nature and unjust in application has been allowed to remain on the statute book. Rightly then you reap what you sow. It is a bad law and should have been either annulled or suitably amended - a failing that is now an albatross around their necks who are detained at present. By refusing production of these elected members in the House the Speaker is accused of transforming a law-making platform into a gladiators' arena and denying their constituents of right to be part of the national democratic process. Imran Khan may have his own ideas but the Speaker is under oath to protect jurisdiction of the National Assembly and help generate ambience that should not only lead to expeditious law-making but also raise the quality of debates which in turn is likely to deepen public's commitment to democratic order in Pakistan.