Though PM Gilani has been convicted for ‘bringing judiciary of the country into ridicule’, both the PPP and main opposition party PML-N seem to have realized the fact that still a large ground was to be covered to oust Gilani from the Prime Minister’s House thus giving the ruling party courage to adopt an aggressive attitude and the main opposition party PML-N retracting from its challenge to the convicted prime minister that they would not let him enter the House.
The realization of the legal position was reflective from the attitude of the two parties in the House on Friday when the convicted chief executive of the country resorted to an aggressive tone against the main opposition party and Opposition Leader Nisar Ali Khan did not appear in the House despite challenging the “no-more-prime minister” a day earlier. The opposition party seemed to be in full realization of the fact that the government had the right of appeal against the court order followed by the legal process of disqualification of the prime minister that involved NA speaker, who is a key member of the ruling party.
Thursday was Nisar’s day when he announced that the PML-N would not allow the PM to enter the House, but Friday belonged to the prime minister, as he not only entered the House but also challenged the main opposition party to bring a vote of no-confidence if it wanted to remove him.
Gilani apparently relied on Article 63 (2) of the constitution which says that question of disqualification of a member of the National Assembly will be decided by the speaker of the National Assembly.
The article 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, unless he decides that no such question has arisen, refer the question to the Election Commission within thirty days and should he fail to do so within the aforesaid period it shall be deemed to have been referred to the Election Commission.” Speaking in the House, the prime minister said no one else but the speaker could decide his fate.
The prime minister attended the sitting for 38 minutes while the leader of the opposition remained absent. The PML-N staged a walkout while the PM addressed the House on a Point of Order.
Another interpretation of the post-conviction attitude of the two major parties can be made that both PML-N and the government have decided to play their part of politics on the issue without directly confronting each other before it is finally settled on legal forums, as on Thursday, Gilani did not turn up in the House and provided Nisar an opportunity to speak against him and a day later, the PM appeared in the House but Nisar was not there to challenge him. The Supreme Court in its short order has left no ambiguity that the effect of the conviction itself is so serious in terms of Article 63 (1) (g) and that also led the apex court to show leniency in the matter of imprisonment of the Prime Minister.
“As regards the sentence to be passed against the convict, we note that the findings and the conviction for contempt of court recorded above are likely to entails some serious consequences in terms of Article 63 (1) (g) of the constitution which may be treated as mitigating factors towards the sentence to be passed against him,” said the short order of the SC. Article 63 (1) (g) deals with disqualification of member of parliament. According to the article, a person shall be disqualified from being a member of parliament if he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for defaming or bringing into ridicule the judiciary.
However, the Article 63(2) gives a bit of room to the government which says that such question of disqualification will be decided by the NA speaker.
On the other hand, Justice Shakirullah Jan has been working as the acting chief election commissioner as the government is yet to nominate the new CEC after Hamid Ali Mirza’s retirement on March 23.
It is unlikely that he will take 90 days to de-notify Gilani’s membership once the speaker refers the matter to the Election Commission. Keeping in view the attitude of the PPP towards the judiciary of the country, it is likely that the NA speaker holds the reference and the matter resounds in the court rooms.
