Senate pitches idea of dialogue among state institutions

Parliament, executive, judiciary and military to be invited to ensure institutions work within constitutional limits

ISLAMABAD: The upper house of parliament has decided to hold an intra-institutional dialogue among key stakeholders of the country – parliament, executive, judiciary and military establishment – to ensure that all institutions work within their constitutional domains.

At the conclusion of a Senate session on Thursday, Chairman Raza Rabbani got a verbal approval from lawmakers to invite these institutions for a dialogue. He would be approaching the military through the prime minister and the judiciary directly for the first of a kind dialogue in the country.

Earlier, the two-day debate on “post-Panama Papers verdict political situation and the way forward – role of parliament” ended without any concrete outcome prompting the chairman to put forward his proposal before reading the prorogation order.

He also decided to convert the upper house of parliament into a committee to discuss in detail how to avoid confrontation among the state institutions. For this purpose, the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition will move a combined motion on the first day of the next session expected to start from Aug 21.

Rabbani in his ruling did not elaborate if the proposed dialogue would be held during huddle of committee of the whole. Prior to initiation of the second-day of discussion, the chairman observed that internal weaknesses should also be looked into while suggesting a way forward.



“Political parties have not taken parliament seriously and major decisions are taken outside parliament either in the form of APCs [all parties’ conferences] or through consultative meetings hence undermining the role of parliament,” he said, adding that political questions were also taken to courts.

According to him, political parties in power have not given importance to parliamentary decisions. Major policy decisions – pertaining to and dealing with foreign policy, internal security, international treaties, and many other such like significant matters – have never been brought before parliament. Major loans and special financial agreements are not even showed to parliamentarians, he added.

The house witnessed the worst-ever criticism of the judiciary and the military for the second consecutive day.

Taking part in the discussion, the senators called for either repealing or amending the qualification and disqualification clauses (Articles 62-63) of the Constitution, besides amending Article 184 (3) to provide for an appeal against the apex court’s decisions in cases pertaining to ‘fundamental rights’.

There appeared to be a consensus emerging on amending Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, with some suggesting that applicability of the clauses must not be restricted only to the lawmakers but be also extended to bureaucrats and other important office holders.

Senator Karim Khawaja of the PPP went to the extent of calling the judiciary an extension of the General Headquarters (GHQ) and alleging that it always helped dictators. Opening the discussion, Senator Farhatullah Babar, held ousted premier Nawaz Sharif responsible for weakening parliament.

“It was Nawaz Sharif who rejected the bid to amend Articles 62 and 63. It was Nawaz Sharif who refused to agree to Constitution court at the time of the 18th amendment even after endorsing it in charter of democracy.

“It was Nawaz Sharif who sought the disqualification of PM Gillani through courts. It was Nawaz Sharif who joined hands with agencies against three PPP governments. It was Nawaz Sharif who took part in the agencies' rigging of the 1990 elections,” he said.

He, however, said he could not welcome the Supreme Court’s July 28 verdict.

“Disqualifying an elected PM on the basis of a technicality brings to mind the verdict in Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan case. Then the whole parliament was allowed to be disbanded on the basis of a technicality of one kind.

“Today, thankfully the parliament is intact but its leader has been disqualified on the basis of a technicality of another kind,” he added. Babar also called upon parliament to rise to the occasion beyond partisan politics but in the same breath also posed four questions.



“First, will the Parliament define [terms of] Sadiq and Amin? Article 260 of the Constitution defined various terms used in the Constitution but not the terms Sadiq and Amin. Whether the measure of sadaqat and amanat applied only to a member of parliament? Whether a judge must always be Sadiq and Amin even if he has taken oath under PCO and legitimized subversion of Constitution? Whether a general epitomised sadaqat and amanat even if he has suspended the Constitution and fled the country when tried for the crime and given protection in a hospital where police cannot enter?

“Second, since the Panama Papers were all about accountability, will parliament take the bull by its horns and make legislation for across the board accountability of all the high and mighty regardless of whether they were elected representatives or were judges and generals?

“Third, whether the parliament must permit use of Article 184 (3) that allows no appeal and contravenes Article 10-A guaranteeing fair trial. Nawaz Sharif wearing black coat pleaded before SC to set up Commission in Memogate under Article 184 and has no moral authority to revisit it. Yet I will ask Parliament to review the use of Article 184.

“Fourth, whether time had not come for setting up a constitutional court as envisaged in the charter of democracy with equal number of judges from all provinces. Again although Nawaz Sharif has no moral authority to demand it now as he had rejected it before, yet I will urge parliament to consider it.”



He said these were fundamental questions facing the parliament which it may ignore only at the peril of democracy and perpetuation of extra parliamentary forces to destabilise the system. He called for referring these questions to the Committee of the Whole to which all stakeholders be also invited.

Senator Abdul Qayyum of the ruling PML-N said the country was passing through a critical situation as it was faced with both internal and external challenges. He observed that ambiguities in Article 62 and 63 should be removed.

Tahir Mashhadi of the MQM said hundreds of people had been named in Panama Papers but the Supreme Court chose to single out Nawaz Sharif. “Judgments should speak but in this case the judges were speaking”. He suggested repeal of Articles 62 and 63.