ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday noted that the panacea of the current political turmoil in the country is the elections.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heading a three-judge bench said, “The real answer to political turmoil and conflict is to go to the people.” He then remarked: “why has it not been sent to them.”
The bench which also comprised Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, on Thursday, heard former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.
When the federation’s counsel contended that the petitioner had contested the by-election on seven seats but is not joining the parliament. At that, the chief justice remarked; “how about asking the gentleman (Imran) to come before the court and explain (reason). “What is the point of contesting the election when you are not going to join the parliament?”
During the proceeding, Makhdoom Ali Khan, arguing on the locus standi of the petition, contended that the petitioner has to show how he is aggrieved of the amendments, adding the Court had to see his conduct.
The chief justice said the facts of that case were somewhat different, as the petitioner was the head of one of the largest parties in the country and the former prime minister. Makhdoom said “but now he (the petitioner) is an ordinary citizen.”
Immediate elections only solution to turmoil: governor
The CJP then said in the political turmoil and conflict as a strategy the petitioner’s party boycotted the Parliament, but when they decided to go back to the Parliament, the Speaker accepted their resignations.
Justice Bandial further said that the issue of corruption had been at the centre stage since the creation of Pakistan. “This is not a minor issue,” he added.
The CJP further said the real answer to all the political turmoil was the election. “Send this issue to the people of Pakistan, but why it has not been sent to them.”
The chief justice noted that the ECP had stated in the speaker’s ruling case that they would be ready to conduct elections in November 2022. They (the ECP) dragged eight months. “Parliament is not complete and a controversy created over the legislation.”
The chief justice told the counsel that locus standi was not a good point. “You (the government) can challenge the petition on bona fide but not on the ground of locus standi.”
Justice Mansoor questioned what were the reasons that the petitioner instead of debating the issue in the Parliament walked out of it?
He further asked what is the significance of the parliament? Are the parliamentarians not the trustees? The people have put their trust in and sent him (Imran) to the Parliament, but he walked out of it, adding as a trustee, he had not played his role.
Makhdoom said the conduct of the petitioner was that he made changes in the law by way of promulgating the ordinances, adding before making changes in the NAB law he did not deem to seek the opinion of the parliament that was the locus standi.
Justice Mansoor remarked that some drastic things had happened, which had badly ruined the fabric of society. He questioned if something wrong had happened in the parliament then should the court fix it?
Makhdoom said in the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, there was a change of penalty, forum, and certain presumptions. He argued if every legislation is questioned then every opposition leader comes before the court, saying he is head of the largest party and must hear his plea against the legislation passed by the majority in the parliament.
The chief justice said it was only assumed that the references returned by the Accountability Court would go to another forum, but in the last eight months, no reference had been sent to any other forum. He said there was a flavour of self-serving in the impugned law. There is apprehension that it was done in a hurry.
He argued how the court could question whether the law was passed quickly or late. He said the draft bill on the ordinances through that changes were made in the NAO, was already before the Standing Committee.
After Imran’s removal, it was tabled in the National Assembly by the incumbent government. He informed that the PTI government issued five ordinances to amend the NAO, 1999, adding the government had only brought subtle changes of expression.
The counsel said the petitioner, after the acceptance of 11 resignations of the PTI MNAs had contested by-election from eight seats, but won from seven constituencies, adding it meant he showed confidence in the parliament. He, however, raised the question of why the petitioner was not using the Assembly for which it was being created.
Justice Mansoor questioned what was the role of the minority in the parliament. It is just to debate and when to lose the debate then boycott the parliament. Makhdoom said minority views were also known to the public.
He then gave an example of the SC’s opinion on Article 63A of the Constitution where two judges expressed different views than the majority. Former CJP AR Cornelius’s dissent in the Maulvi Tamizuddin case is also known to the public.
Makhdoom argued that amendments were being challenged by the petitioner and not the public. The chief justice inquired of the counsel, “how about asking the gentleman to come before the court and explain (the reason). What is the point of contesting the election when you are not going to join the parliament.”
Justice Ijaz said when it is clear the law was self-serving and against the basic norm then should the court not intervene? He further said that huge interest was involved, adding that was a self-serving law designed to benefit a select people sitting there (the parliament).
The case was adjourned until today (Friday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.