Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesday said the apex court wanted to know more about the alleged conspiracy against Prime Minister Imran Khan before issuing its decision in the sou motu case against the ruling issued by the deputy speaker that dismissed the no-confidence motion against Imran on the pretext of a foreign conspiracy.
During the hearing of the case yesterday, Justice Bandial said, “We want to see what the conspiracy was that was used to dismiss the motion.”
He added that the court would also examine whether the speaker had the authority to deviate from the agenda of the house and rely on some other “facts”.
“Whether there was such material present when did the meeting of the National Security Committee take place,” Justice Bandial went on to ask and said the PTI lawyer, Babar Awan, also needed to tell the court if a constitutional process could be sidelined. An allegation was made in the case, he said, adding that the court wanted to focus on “facts” in the case as the ruling was an action by the speaker.
Awan said a message regarding a meeting, which was attended by the deputy head of the mission, defence attache and three other diplomats, arrived in Pakistan on March 7. “Was this information coded as you used the term ‘decipher’,” the SC asked. Awan explained that the Foreign Office examined the memo and then a meeting was called that was not attended by the foreign secretary due to unavailability.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes notes from the cipher and briefs the cabinet,” he said, adding that he had brought a brief with him that he could show the court in an in-camera hearing. However, the court rejected the request, saying it was not asking for the letter at present. “There is nothing in the case that requires an in-camera hearing,” the CJP added.
Awan further said the prime minister was told in a briefing that a country was unhappy with the premier but if the no-confidence motion against him succeeded then everything would be fine. “Then a no-trust motion, already mentioned elsewhere, against Imran is filed on March 8,” he said, claiming that the issue was brought to parliament and a notice was issued in this regard.
He argued that it was incumbent upon citizens to remain loyal to the state. CJP Bandial replied that the ruling only contained allegations, not findings and asked if the speaker could issue a ruling without revealing the facts.
“The court needs to decide on the constitutionality of this particular action,” the judge added.
“Can a speaker go beyond Article 95 to give a ruling that’s not part of the agenda,” the court asked. “You are welcome to defend the ruling but on solid ground,” the chief justice told Awan. “Where are the minutes of the NSC meeting,” the judge asked. The court wanted facts, Justice Bandial said.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked about the briefing to the cabinet by the foreign ministry. “What did the cabinet decide after the briefing,” he asked Awan.
PTI’s counsel spoke about the cable but the SC judge told him to leave it to the lawyer of the speaker. “Tell us what did the cabinet decide,” he asked again.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked, “What action did the government take against those found involved in the conspiracy.” The government did not take action against them.
Justice Mandokhel added that if the prime minister wanted to form a commission over the alleged conspiracy then he doesn’t know who was involved in it. “I cannot tell what the prime minister knows for the sake of the national interest,” Awan responded.
Justice Bandial added that the court wanted to focus on the legitimacy of the ruling and Article 69. “You are talking about circumstantial evidence,” Justice Ahsan said, adding that how did the government link these circumstances to an individual?
It’s already 1 pm, the CJP said, adding that they wanted to conclude the case.
After Awan, President’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar started his arguments in the case. As per the lawyer, the president raised questions over the maintainability of pleas under Article 184/3.
Zafar said Article 69 sets a boundary between the court and parliament which couldn’t be crossed. He said any directions by the top court, in this case, would be akin to going beyond its mandate.
“Giving directions to the assembly speaker is like dictation to parliament which is unconstitutional,” the counsel said. “Can the court not intervene when there is an unconstitutional act by parliament,” CJP Bandial asked. “I will go into details of what is and what is not constitutional afterwards,” Barrister Zafar responded.
Referring to the speech of Justice (r) Baqir Maqbool, Zafar said the retired judge talked about a balance between institutions that could only be achieved through mutual respect. He added if the speaker’s ruling was to be reviewed then every ruling of the speaker in the future would come to the court. The court doesn’t have authority to review the ruling, he added.
“Can the court examine the PM’s advice to dissolve the National Assembly,” Justice Ahsan asked. “If the advice came as a result of the ruling then the court cannot review it,” the lawyer representing Alvi responded.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked how could the ruling of the speaker be terminated. “Only the house can terminate it,” the counsel added.
Justice Munib Akhtar asked if there was a decision by parliament that had far-reaching ramifications then what should be done. “The court cannot review the parliament’s decisions,” the lawyer reiterated. He added that the court could review the impacts of the decision outside parliament.
Every citizen has to abide by the constitution; is the speaker above the Constitution, asked Justice Mandokhel.
The petitioners said that the speaker violated Article 95 and that the court could review the ruling if there was an unconstitutional act, the CJ said, adding that the top court respected the division of power.
The Islamabad High Court, in a case against the election of Senate chief Sadiq Sanjrani, had said the “house had the constitutional authority to elect” the chair. If the court declared that the ruling concerning the no-confidence motion was not part of the parliamentary proceedings only then could it review the ruling, Barrister Zafar added.
Justice Mandokhel said if the speaker announced the success of the no-trust vote even if the votes were not enough to oust the PM then what will happen? The lawyer responded these were parliamentary issues but the court couldn’t act as the monitor of parliament.
The lawyer urged the court to let parliament solve its issues on its own. Is the election of the PM part of parliamentary proceedings, Justice Munib Akhtar asked. Barrister Zafar said as per Article 91, it was a part of parliamentary proceedings.
Justice Bandial said the lawyer made an “interesting observation” that the false ruling of the speaker was also immune from the scrutiny of the court. The elections were announced after the ruling of the speaker and it was said that “they would go to the people [for polls]”. “We will ask the lawyer of N-League why were they opposing going to people [for elections], the CJ added. “Whose rights are being affected by the snap elections,” Justice Munib Akhtar chipped in.
“Can the court ask the premier and the president for reasons behind the dissolution of the assembly,” Justice Mandokhel questioned. It was not necessary to tell the reasons, the lawyer said.
CJ Bandial said the case was a violation of Article 95, adding that the SC could intervene when there was a violation of the constitution. “We respect the sanctity of parliament,” he added. “Is the abrogation of the constitution also protected,” Justice Ahsan questioned.
Justice Mandokhel said the procedure regarding the no-confidence motion and the defectors was enshrined in the constitution. The judge added that as per the lawyer’s argument the majority in the house and the ruling of the speaker were two different things. “Can the prime minister remain in power after losing the majority,” he asked.
CJ Bandial said that in the current case, the premier appealed to the nation by announcing elections which was “not a bad thing”.
He, however, added that the speaker’s ruling was unprecedented and if not undone it would have negative impacts in the future. “It seemed that no-trust motion was going to succeed…and on the day of voting this ruling was announced…we will try to conclude this case at the earliest,” the CJ added.
The CJ said the court wanted to conclude the case early so it was extending the hearing. “We want to listen to the attorney general,” CJ Bandial said, adding that it will listen to Naeem Bukhari as well.
AGP and Bukhari both requested the court that they would give their arguments on Thursday. The case was adjourned till 9:30 on Thursday.
