Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, on Friday said National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza had used her “quasi judicial powers” about the sentence to the prime minister and gave her ruling over the issue with “due application of her mind”.
He said this while arguing his case before a three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain. The bench was hearing petitions filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Azhar Chaudhry advocate and others challenging the NA speaker’s May 28 ruling.
“She is no longer a mere ‘post office’ after the passage of the 18th Amendment by parliament and now the speaker has to perform her exclusive functions of a sovereign institution,” he contended.
The chief justice asked Aitzaz to complete his arguments by 11am on Monday and adjourned the hearing, reflecting that the court had made up its mind and a judgement was likely on Monday. Aitzaz asked the chief justice to form a larger bench in view of the significance of the case. He said the National Assembly speaker had made the right decision on the qualification of the prime minister in light of the seven-member bench’s verdict in the contempt of court issue. He argued that in view of the trichotomy of powers, courts must give some respect to other institutions, particularly the sovereign legislature, its speaker and its leader, the prime minister.
Referring to the judgement of the seven-member bench, the prime minister’s counsel said the concept of subjective satisfaction of a court or a judge was alien to law. The chief justice told Aitzaz that he should have raised these issues in an appeal against the court verdict. However, Aitzaz argued that he was submitting his contentions on the conviction issue, adding that that there would be no automatic disqualification of a member of parliament under Article 63 of the constitution. He said the respondents’ conviction did not mean his disqualification.
He said he was accepting the judicial verdict but was persuading the court that his client had not stood disqualified on the basis of a verdict and thus did not require to appeal against the verdict. The sentence less than one year would not render a member of parliament disqualified, he added. The chief justice told him that they would not consider it as filing of an appeal against the decision of April 26 or otherwise. He observed that it was the first case before the court in which a member of parliament had not filed an appeal against his conviction. “If you had moved an appeal, things might have been different,” he told Aitzaz. Upon inquiry of the bench, the National Assembly joint legislation secretary appeared on behalf of the National Assembly speaker, but the chief justice told him that if he wanted to appear in person, he should adopt the set process by submitting an authorisation on behalf of the respondent.
Amazing that one person (who does not even have a law degree) can over rule the decision of a seven member bench of the highest court in the country. If this precedent is set then toorrow a high school drop out like zardari could become the national assembly speaker and out of sheer ignorance, over rule court decisions. Aitzaz is leading the counrty down a wrong pathway the results of which could be disastrous. He's being extremely short sighted and risking the future of the country just to please his masters. By now, we all know that he's a good slave but I wish he was atleast a patriotic slave.
Democracy is totally a govt by the representative of the people. That s why supremacy of parliament is the main pillar of democracy without which building of democracy will fall. All other institutions of the state are subserviant to will of the people represented by the parliament. Speaker of NA derives his powers from clause 69 of constitution again included in constitution by a general and was not removed later. Even SC in some earlier cases said. " Speaker is not a post office. He shud make a decision" So, Speaker has done what SC has empowered him to do in some earlier cases, probably 4 yrs ago.
When judges who do not know the ABC of the biz could set the sugar prices , then speaker can also over rule the decision of the judges , because she is empowered by the constitution .If a school drop out is elected by the people and peoples representatives elect him/her for the position of speaker then no body has right to ridicule the people's verdict . This is democracy ,,,,,,
Iftikhar should not be conducting any judicial business till final disposal of Familygate. Also, Parliament is sovereign. Parliament makes laws and the custodian understands law better.
Comments are closed.