All but two parties oppose bills on services chiefs

PML-N, PPP back legislation, JUI-F, JI oppose

ISLAMABAD:  

The tabling of three bills on the appointment and tenures of the services chiefs and its approval from a meeting of the Senate and National Assembly Standing committees on defences offered a rare show of agreement between the government and opposition.

Now that the bill is ripe for its passage from the lower house of parliament next week, the opposition parties have promised their support for the legislation—except for two religio-political parties -- Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F).

“We are willing to support the legislation if the government follows parliamentary procedures,” Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the PPP Chairman, said. Talking to the reporters at the Parliament House, he described tabling of the bill in the National Assembly a “victory for his party”.

The PPP chief said that his party had 50 votes in the National Assembly, hence, he could not influence “even a comma or a full stop”, but was averse to the idea of the way the government and the PML-N wanted to proceed ahead on the legislation.

“The PML-N did not take the opposition into confidence before offering the government their unconditional support,” he said. “I think this should have not happened in this way. It is the responsibility of the opposition leader to unite the opposition.”

Bilawal described it a “small victory” for his party that the government was not bulldozing the legislation and was instead following parliamentary rules in this regard. “If important bills are passed without following the parliament’s procedure it will set a bad precedent for the future,” he said.

He also expressed his surprise that the government brought the three bills in pursuance of the Supreme Court’s verdict on the army chief’s extension, despite challenging the November 28 ruling in the apex court. He hoped this contradiction would be removed after the passage of this bill.

“I am still a little confused on what the actual stance of the government is? The government has also challenged the Supreme Court’s order through its review petition which on its face looks like a contradiction to me.”

The government hailed the opposition’s support and cooperation. “This is an important step towards civilian supremacy and it has proven that if leadership has the vision they can turn every challenge into an opportunity,” said Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Information Firdous Ashiq Awan.

Expressing the hope that the amendments would also be passed through the democratic process, Firdous said: “Today a democratic process has been initiated.” She congratulated opposition parties and their members for fulfilling the “important responsibility worthy of recognition”.

Science and Technology Minister Fawad Chaudhry stressed that the army was an institution of the whole country, and there could be no politicking on national institution. “We are moving ahead with consensus,” the minister told reporters outside the Parliament House.

However, despite all this rare show of unanimity, the JI and the JUI-F sought to distance themselves away from the legislation. JI chief Sirajul Haq tweeted on Friday evening that his party “will not support” the Army Act Amendment Bill, while JUI-F chief Fazl announced to resist its passage.

Talking to the media after chairing a meeting of the JUI-F parliamentary party, Fazl said the parliamentary party would take a final decision on whether or not to take party in the voting on the bills, when it is taken up for passage.

“The tenure of the army chief is a very important matter and we cannot allow an assembly formed after stealing people’s mandate to legislate on it,” he said. “The Supreme Court has ruled for removing legal discrepancies in this matter but the current rulers are creating the new ones.”

JI’s Haq also took the similar line. “The decisions taken on the basis of ‘doctrine of necessity’ cause embarrassment later. Therefore, we cannot support the government. We will side with the principles,” he told reporters. “There should be no haste in the legislative process.”