The speaker’s ruling saved PM Gilani from a possible disqualification through the Election Commission. This ruling was legal and political in nature and the impact was so overwhelming that it became a factor behind PPP’s decision not to file an appeal against the PM’s conviction in the Supreme Court. An objective analysis of the speaker’s ruling could easily point out the political interests involved in it; however, much to the disappointment of hawks, it also has a good legal reasoning to back it. The speaker, being the custodian of the house, enjoys immense powers under the 1973 constitution (whereas this wasn’t the case in the constitution of 1964).
The problem with some of the hawkish commentators is that they want the law to take its course and the constitution to be applied in accordance with their whims and wishes. They keep forgetting, perhaps conveniently, that the constitution stipulates rights, duties and functions for the offices, not the persons holding the office. Article 63(2) gave powers to the speaker to decide about the issue of the disqualification of any member of the National Assembly. The constitution has given the right to the speaker to exercise his/her discretion in this particular issue.
A learned commentator while criticising the speaker’s ruling mentioned that the speaker had deliberately ignored that the PM was already convicted for ridiculing the Supreme Court. The learned commentator should have realised that Dr Fehmida Mirza was taking a decision on the issue of the disqualification and not the conviction of the prime minister. The consequence would have been entirely different if the Supreme Court had invoked the Article 63 (1)(g) in clear words and defined the course of a definitive disqualification through the Election Commission. The short and detailed verdict of the Supreme Court lacked did not choose to do this; hence, the speaker had some room to play her role.
One must appreciate that fate is siding with the PM and his party these days. Indeed, fortune has been kind to them. The PM has managed to survive what many thought would be the final swoop. The speaker, who has remained the most non controversial and unassuming figure in the last four years, enjoys the finality in her decisions under the constitution. Article 69 of the constitution provides immunity to the proceedings of the parliament in such a way that they cannot be called into any court of law. According to Article 69(2) “No officer or member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.”
However, there are quite a few potential petitioners who would want the court to seek a judicial review of the speaker’s ruling in the case of the issue of the PM’s disqualification. If challenged, then the Supreme Court will be treading an extremely treacherous path. This will be a yet another case where the Supreme Court will adjudicate on the powers of the speaker of National Assembly. If raised as a defense by the speaker, the scope of Article 69 may also be determined by the Supreme Court as it reserves the exclusive right and prerogative to interpret the law. Although based on different facts, the defence of Article 69 was not accepted by the Sindh High Court in the case of Muhammad Naeem Akhtar Vs Speaker, Sindh Assembly, 1992 CLC 2043. The court ruled that action of the speaker neither comes with the meaning of “any proceedings in the provincial assembly” nor such action can be described as an exercise of power by the speaker for regulating the procedure or the conduct of business in the Assembly.
However, a different opinion was given by Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi who explained the scope of Article 69. According to him, “it is because of these Articles in the Constitution that the Superior Courts have refused to scrutinise the internal proceedings and procedures of the Assembly so that the independence and sovereignty of the legislature in that respect is not infringed and violated”.
The hostility between the SC and the Executive is now obvious. The decision not file an appeal speaks volumes about the fears of People’s Party of not getting justice from this bench of the Supreme Court. The prime minister has made it clear in his interview to a private news channel that the bias of the Supreme Court is evident and the interpretation comes from somewhere else and not from the Supreme Court. What else could be more damaging for a state and its institutions when the head of the executive disbelieves the most sacred institution of the country?
The writer hosts a prime time talk show. He can be contacted at [email protected]
After deliberately disobeying a number of judgements of Supreme Court the PM believes that this August Court is perverse and biased. Have they shown some respect for the Supreme Court through their conduct in the last three years? Does morality stands somewhere in this whole episode. Is it a democratic government or a band of robbers which always feel the independent judiciary antagonist.
The so -called sacred institution should take care of its SANCTITY while doing JUSTICE to every one ,equally…………………………….
"Article 63(2) gave powers to the speaker to decide about the issue of the disqualification of any member of the National Assembly."
Umm. No, it does not.
Article 63(2) reads: If any question arises whether a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has become disqualified from being a member, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall, within thirty days from raising of such question refer the question to the Chief Election Commissioner.
Speak for itself, does it not?
The decision of the speaker is based on the fact that "the question did not arise whether a member ………….." therefore the mater was not referred to CEC.
it is another delay tectic whcih aims to prolong the period of PM Gillani .
Comments are closed.