Home Latest News IHC CJ Seeks Proof of PTI’s Intent to Return to Parliament

IHC CJ Seeks Proof of PTI’s Intent to Return to Parliament

Hearing postponed indefinitely after resigned PTI lawmakers’ counsel fails to satisfy judge

by Staff Report

Farooq Naeem—AFP

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday advised the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to prove, within five days, that it intends to return to Parliament before seeking an annulment of the National Assembly speaker’s acceptance of the resignations of 10 lawmakers.

Noting that the court cannot order the speaker to accept or reject resignations, Chief Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the appropriate forum to address the issue was Parliament and not the court. “First, the petitioners should satisfy that they have really come with clean hands; that they believe in democracy and the supremacy of Parliament. It cannot be possible that you only agree to things that happen according to your will,” he added, as he adjourned the proceedings and postponed a ruling decision indefinitely.

On Wednesday, 10 PTI MNAs—Ali Muhammad Khan; Fazal Muhammad Khan; Shaukat Ali; Fakhar Zaman Khan; Farrukh Habib; Ijaz Shah; Jamil Ahmad Khan; Muhammad Akram; Shireen Mazari; Shandana Gulzar—submitted a petition before the IHC seeking the annulment of their resignations. In their petition, they argued that the resignations were a “political tool” that were not issued voluntarily and as such could not be accepted by the speaker. Urging the IHC to set aside their resignations, the petitioners said by-elections on these seats should be postponed. They also said their resignations were “conditional” on the basis of all 123 being accepted.

Taking up the matter, the IHC chief justice stressed that the court respects Parliament and questioned if the petitioners’ plea reflected their party policy. “This is a political issue and Parliament is the place to resolve political tussles,” he remarked. “You should hold dialogue with political parties to resolve problems,” he said, wondering if the resigned members actually wanted to return to Parliament to resolve the people’s issues or were using this as a ploy to avoid by-elections.

The PTI lawmakers’ counsel, Ali Zafar, responded by claiming his clients had not approached the IHC against party policy. To this, the judge pointed out that the petitioners had previously all admitted their resignations were “genuine.” To this, the lawyer maintained his clients’ issue was that the speaker had not fulfilled his constitutional obligations by verifying their notices, adding the resignations were given on the condition that all 123 be accepted together.

“We say that the resignations were conditional. If all the members’ resignations were not accepted then the condition was not met,” he said, noting 112 resignations had yet to be accepted. Justice Minallah then questioned why they had not returned to Parliament to fulfill their responsibility to their constituents. “This is a secondary issue,” claimed Zafar.

“Then by being members of Parliament they are virtually boycotting the assembly. Think about this and submit an affidavit,” said the IHC CJ, adding the court had no desire to be dragged into political matters.

“Is your stance that the party forced them to resign? If this is the case then you are going against party policy,” said Justice Minallah. To this, Zafar reiterated that the lawmakers’ were acting in accordance with party policy, adding that recent audio leaks had shown the selective process of accepting resignations. The judge then reiterated that in this scenario the MNAs that have not been de-notified should return to Parliament. “Parliament has been disrespected a lot, do not turn democracy into joke,” he said, adding political uncertainty in the country can only be ended through Parliament.

Conditional orders

Zafar then attempted to get the judge to suspend the order for acceptance of resignations by claiming that the party would then approach the NA speaker for a return to Parliament. “The court will not facilitate you in political dialogue; petitioners say they do not accept the Parliament. They want to maintain political instability which is not in the interest of the country,” remarked Minallah, adding that if the petitioners accepted Parliament, they should return to it and prove the PTI’s good intentions.

When Zafar attempted to claim the speaker had accepted the 11 resignations on the directions of members of the ruling coalition, the IHC CJ told him not to allege this without substantive proof. “This court respects Parliament’s supremacy [even if] members of parliament are not doing so,” he said, adding that the court was willing to give five days to the petitioners to satisfy it of their intent to return to Parliament.

At this, the petitioners’ counsel asked the judge to suspend the speaker’s order de-notifying the resignations. “The acceptance of resignations was done by aliens not by the speaker,” he said, using a euphemism for the security establishment. However, the judge noted that the lawyer only appeared to be seeking the suspension of the order so the PTI could continue its boycott of Parliament.

To this, Zafar said the petitioners wished to remain MNAs and were seeking a suspension of the order in this regard. “You do not want to go back to represent your constituency but for your politics,” responded Justice Minallah. “Petitioners are asking for suspension of notification to continue boycott under party policy,” he said, stressing no political party was above Parliament.

“The petitioners should give an affidavit that they do not accept the party policy of boycotting the Parliament,” he said to which Zafar said his clients were bound by the party policy. To this, the judge suggested adjourning the hearing for an indefinite period but Zafar said this would mean by-polls would already be held on the vacant seats. “You only wish to stop by-elections?” asked the judge, remarking that the petitioners cannot say they do not obey Parliament and will not go back.

He then adjourned the proceedings without issuing any orders, with the registrar directed to put it up for hearing again at a later date.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment