Opposition, treasury lawmakers go up in arms in both Houses

Opposition and treasury lawmakers in both Houses of parliament went up in arms against each other over controversies involving the chair as they accused referees of both Houses for being “partial” during the proceedings on Friday, triggering a walkout by a united opposition from the Senate against the treasury MPs’ “attitude”.

The drama started in the Senate when the Senate deputy chairman, Sabir Ali Baloch, referred a question about the failure of the government to legislate for the quota allocation to provinces. The referral ignited the environment as the treasury benches awoke from a deep slumber and objected to the deputy chairman’s ruling.

Leader of the House Raja Zafarul Haq termed the chair’s ruling biased and asserted that the chair should have taken sense of the House before ruling on the matter as the views of the treasury members must be heard properly before the chair takes a decision.

He said the federal cabinet had approved legislation for ensuring provincial quota allocation and the piece of legislation would be submitted soon. He opined that the in the referral of the matter to the privileges committee, the ministers were not allowed to express their views.

Mushahidullah Khan, the parliamentary leader of the PML-N, said since the deputy chairman belonged to a specific party, the PPP, he could be seen tilting towards his party’s lawmakers. He urged the deputy chairman to remain impartial per the norms and traditions of parliament.

Mushahidullah’s remarks triggered a serious verbal clash with PPP leader Raza Rabbani and the members from both sides rose from their seats and started accusing each other. Harsh language was used by Mushahidullah and Rabbani and personal remarks were made against each other.

Leader of the Opposition Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said the Senate represented the federation as the lawmakers of the federating units were a part of the House. He said the provincial quota was not being observed in the departments.

Earlier, Senator Zahid Khan raised the issue and said the smaller provinces were not being given adequate quota in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and the share of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was not being observed. He said the ministry had not submitted answers of two questions over the subject matter.

PPP parliamentary leader, Rabbani proposed that the matter was of a sensitive nature and it might be referred to the privileges committee per the rules. The chair referred the matter to the privileges committee which triggered a heated debate.

Haq said the government did not want to heighten the issue but the ruling of the chair was not appropriate as the chair did not seek sense of the House.

The opposition later staged a walkout from the proceedings of the Upper House.

However, they returned after the leader of the house, Senator Rafique Rajwana and Minister for State for IT Anusha Rehman urged the opposition to return to the House.

Later, better sense prevailed and Mushahidullah and Rabbani regretted the exchange of harsh words and offered apology to each other. In the National Assembly, the speaker’s decision to extend the session to next week was challenged by lawmakers of the PTI, the MQM and the Awami Muslim League who accused the speaker and opposition leader for bulldozing the decision and changing the decisions taken during the business advisory meeting without consulting them.

The opposition members who had locked horns on the issue of debate on presidential address later agreed to the extension of session when the speaker offered an apology and agreed to be careful in future.

Sheikh Rasheed, Javed Hashmi, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Rashid Godel were complaining of extending the period for session without their consultation putting the onus on the speaker and the opposition leader for taking a solo flight.

Both the National Assembly speaker, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq and Opposition Leader Khurshid Shah had decided on Thursday that the session be extended for another week – but without proper consultation with other opposition parties.

The opposition members contesting the issue also least cared for request of veteran parliamentarian Mahmood Khan Achakzai who had requested to endorse the decision with an open heart. The controversy culminated with regrets from the chair when the speaker commented, “It was my mistake. I take this responsibility and assure no recurrence in future. Now allow extension with an open heart.”

These were the continued affairs from overnight when on Thursday Achakzai had pointed out that tenure of President Asif Ali Zardari was completing on September 8 and it would be inappropriate to debate his address after his leaving the office.

The point was well taken but the discussion could not be started because opposition leader was not present in the House. However, the situation became altogether different when Shah Mehmood Qureshi pointed out this decision and said his party was not taken into confidence about extension.

The speaker explained that debate on the presidential address was mandatory and it would lose utility after September 8. “If the members have an objection, we can seek the sense of the House.”

But, Qureshi contested that the House had ample time and the opposition leader should have been here to debate. “There was no bar on the House to take up this agenda item. The House should be run according to parliamentary calendar and the role of opposition in the House affairs should not be overlooked.”

Achakzai was the one voice of sanity when he explained delay in discussion as ‘collective folly’ requesting to condone it. However, Sheikh Rasheed recorded that opposition members had been drawing attention towards the matter for last three days. “Bring the matter to Business Advisory Committee. We shall not endorse the decisions of individuals.”

Hashmi said the presidential address was usually known to be a policy statement of the government and could be discussed even after his departure from the President House.

Godel said his party was also not consulted on this matter. “Such approach may make our presence meaningless.”

Winding up the matter, the speaker said the matter was discussed late at night therefore Business Advisory Committee could not be convened. Such a unique situation had not emerged before.

“Therefore, the decision was made that way. I regret this lapse and request to accept the proposal to extend the session period.”

His clarity of stance not only appeased the members but also resolved the issue as the member agreed to continue with another week to discuss the presidential address to the joint sitting of parliament.