The slugfest between the treasury and opposition benches began right at the outset of the joint session of the parliament on Wednesday, which was also attended by Prime Minister Imran Khan, Leader of the Opposition Shehbaz Sharif and PPP chief Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.
As Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs Dr Babar Awan tabled the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Waqf Properties Bill 2020, which was initially passed through a voice vote, the opposition lawmakers rose to their feet and started demanding a vote count.
During the process of counting, the opposition continued shouting “Vote Ko Izzat Do [respect public mandate]” slogan while the treasury benches occasionally replied to them by raising “Chor Ko Izzat Do [protect the thief]” slogan.
The momentum was broken when National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser announced that the bill was passed with 200 members voting in favour of it and 190 voting against it.
Amid calls for recounting, the speaker gave the floor to PPP’s Raza Rabbani, who, while referring to a recent judgment of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), said an advisor to the PM cannot move a motion as he is not a minister.
According to the IHC judgment, Rabbani said, the advisor may have the status of a minister but performing functions of a minister or executive are separate things.
Minister for Law Dr Farogh Naseem replied to Rabbani and said the advisors can’t vote but there is no bar on their appointment and right to speak in the house under Articles 93 and 57 of the Constitution.
He said he would concede to what Rabbani said if the PPP leader can show the same was stated in the IHC judgment. It can’t be inferred from the IHC verdict that the advisors can’t take part in the proceedings, Dr Naseem added.
At one moment, everyone burst into laughter as Jamaat-e-Islami’s Senator Mushtaq Ahmad started presenting amendments to the bills that were passed by the National Assembly but rejected by the Senate because his whole emphasis was on the words “rejected by the Senate”.
Presenting the amendments, Ahmed continued to criticize the speaker and the government’s behavior and with each rejection, he would stress more on the phrase “rejected by the Senate” until his voice became hoarse.
Speaker Asad Qaiser quipped that he knew how good a speaker Ahmed was because they both belong to Swabi. He urged Ahmed to simply focus on presenting the amendments instead of delivering a speech with them but to no avail.
Ahmed was seen running between opposition benches, trying to mobilize others before every time he was given the floor to present amendments. All his amendments were rejected with a majority vote.
Subsequently, the speaker moved ahead with the proceeding and the opposition with the protest.
Some opposition lawmakers continued flying paper planes, several others torn papers apart and many continued to protest standing around the speaker’s desk. The rest of them kept shouting slogans.
As the speaker succumbed to opposition’s pressure and gave the floor to Bilawal, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi objected, saying Bilawal can’t speak if he has not moved any amendment.
The decision not to allow Bilawal to speak led to more protests, sloganeering and name-calling.
The opposition kept demanding a general discussion on the bills before moving ahead while the speaker was of the view that the voting process has already started and he can’t go back.
Looking from the press gallery, many observed that PPP’s former leaders – Qureshi and Awan – along with the MQM’s Dr Farogh Naseem were the ones who encountered all the technical issues and rescued the treasury benches.
Throughout the session, the opposition spent much of the time surrounding speaker’s chair and finally walked out from the house at 6:33pm while the government’s lawmakers were busy doing clause-by-clause reading of the bills.
The walkout made the treasury bench’s work easier as there was no more uproar in the house and the rest of the amendments just sailed through the joint session.
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