Submitting a reply in the Supreme Court in response to three questions of Awami National Party (ANP) and Balochistan National Partys (BNP), Dr Tahirul Qadri-led party Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) on Tuesday turned down parliamentarians' apprehensions that marchers were misrepresenting army support for their sit-ins in the Red Zone of Islamabad.
Representing the ANP and the BNP on September 10 before Supreme Court in the case, senior parliamentarian Raza Rabbani expressed apprehensions over the sit-ins raising three questions. Filing a reply through Barrister Ali Zafar the PAT said that anyone who was misrepresenting army's support was committing a "political sin", demanding that the ANP and the BNP should withdraw such "wanton assertion" that those parties had attributed to the PAT or its leaders.
"These are hypothetical and academic questions, and it is well established that the Hon'ble Courts do not deal with such theoretical queries or delve in such speculative matters - subject to this the response to all the three questions is given below," the reply stated.
"ANP and BNP are unnecessarily trying to get the name of Pakistan Army involved in a debate and a discussion before the apex court - Pakistan Army is involved in very serious and sensitive matter at present which include defence of the borders, the Operation Zarb-e-Azab, maintaining law and order and it is helping save the lives of millions during the current floods," Ali Zafar said. The reply further said that it was the right of every person to raise a demand including the demand for resignation of any office bearer including prime minister or the chief minister of a province or any minister(s) in any federal government or provincial governments.
The PAT submitted that the question of the ANP and BNP regarding Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif's resignation through the use of force was a political issue and should be resolved through a dialogue between political parties. "It is strange that on the one hand the ANP and the BNP are saying that the apex court should not delve into political questions, yet, on the other hand the above question and the other two are of political nature," the PAT said.
Citing the relevant provisions in the reply, the PAT submitted that the resignations of the prime minister and chief minister were duly provided in the Constitution in Article 91(6) and 130(6), adding that nothing was "unconstitutional" in demanding the resignation of the prime minister or the chief Minister.
According to the PAT, the Punjab Police, which performs under the ultimate control and authority of the chief minister Punjab, opened indiscriminate and barbaric fire upon innocent protesters and ruthlessly killed 14, injured hundreds of men, women and children in broad daylight in front of media cameras and yet not even an FIR has been registered against the accused because the dead and the injured were poor and the accused are powerful people.
The reply added: "It is in fact the Government which is using violence and force upon the participants of the dharna and has now resorted to illegal arrests of people who are exercising their fundamental rights". However, the PAT welcomed the government's decision to ask army chief General Raheel Sharif to mediate because they wanted the issues to be resolved, adding that the debate between the government cabinet members over semantics (whether it is "facilitation", "mediation" or "arbitration") caused harm to this possibility. "In view of the aforesaid it is most respectfully submitted that the Constitution Petition No 74 of 2014 may kindly be disposed of accordingly without any further orders," the PAT requested the Supreme Court.
Comments
Comments are closed.