Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has declared that thedeputy speaker’s ruling link to rejectno-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan was “wrong”.
The top judge, however, asked the lawyers to assist the court for“solution” in the future. “One thing is clear which is the deputy speaker’sruling link is wrong, what will be the nextstem,” he inquired.
Justice Bandial said that the five-judge larger bench will pronounce itsverdict link the rejection of theno-confidence motion today.
During the hearing, the CJ mentioned that the court will have to look afterthe national interest.
Earlier, the Supreme Court link judgesgave a pretty hard time to the lawyers of president, prime minister andspeaker who defended the National Assembly Deputy Speakerlink Qasim Suri’s rulinglink no-confidence motion againstPrime Minister Imran Khan.
During the course of proceedings, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice UmarAta Bandial observed that apparently constitution was violated in theAssembly. “If the voting had been allowed, then it would have become clearwho is the prime minister. Prime Minister cannot dissolve the assembly if ano-confidence motion is tabled. What would be the consequences if the primeminister violates Article 58,” the CJP asked.
The top judge remarked anyone who is losing a no-trust vote tomorrow canopt for new elections.
Justice Bandial said “There is no crisis in the country. Billions are spenton the new elections and the country also passes from a tough situationduring the 90 days. We should think of the country.”
A five-member larger bench of the SC, headed by the CJP, heard thecase. The judges on the bench are Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) JusticeUmar Ata Bandial, Justice Ejazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, Justice MuneebAkhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel observed that the court could not sit mum if therewas a violation of the constitution. Is the no-trust issue not affectingthe public? Is there any protection for unconstitutional steps? Do wesitting here let such unconstitutional steps go by?”
Read Top Stories
Justice Mandokhel further asked can the prime minister advise the presidentdissolution if the majority of the assembly oppose it?
Justice Mandokhel also pointed out that the minutes of the parliamentarycommittee meeting, which were submitted to court by speaker’s lawyer NaeemBukhari, didn’t prove if the deputy speakerlink was present. Continuing,Justice Mandokhel asked whether the foreign minister was present during theparliamentary committee meeting, noting that his signature was not includedin the record.
“Shouldn’t the foreign minister have been present?” the judge asked, whichprompted the lawyer to admit the minister should have been present.
At this, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial pointed out thatMoeed Yusuf’s name was also not included in the record.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said the assembly could have reversed the deputyspeaker’s ruling link had it not beendissolved. “Prime Minister cashed in on the opportunity and dissolve theassembly,” he added.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked was the prime minister aware of the deputyspeaker’s ruling link that he was sittingready to address the nation. “It was not in speaker’s powers to rejectedno-trust move through ruling link,” headded.
He asked was not it like that the written rulinglink was given to the deputy speakerlink. “The deputy speakerlink gave the rulinglink how come it carried the signatureof the speaker,” he baffled.
Justice Muneeb further asked why the voting was not conducted after theruling link?
