The deputy speaker did not stop speeches on this sub judice matter. The members of parliament claimed that many people had requested the lifting of the ban. A number of public representatives approached the apex court to seek a remedy against the ban, referring to the alleged plight of residents, in an attempt to turn the matter into a public interest issue. Interestingly, during the parliamentary debate, Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz remained silent on the issue.
The forest, environment and wildlife departments had their own stance and held that hunting with falcons and hawks was prohibited and referred to international commitments in the preservation of endangered species of flora and fauna.
After the passage of 18th amendment, this issue comes under the ambit of the provinces. The PTI-led Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is the only province, which has not backed the Foreign Office’s petition in the apex Court against the ban, and took the stance that something as trivial as hunting of the houbara bustard should not be considered an issue impacting our foreign policy and diplomacy.
Our apex court has recently been known for its independent historic judgments. Our trust in the courts is an asset. The court has never blocked the lawful option of fair comments and criticism over its judgments. The speaker has not barred or expunged the remarks of parliamentarians and the court did not issue any notice to them. All this shows that there is a system in place in our country and that it is the welfare of the citizens that is an issue of central concern here — not the appeasement of foreign dignitaries.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 4th, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ