PM has full faith in judges’ integrity, AGP tells SC

Says Imran was referring to attack on apex court in 1997, controversial removal of late CJ Sajjad

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court was apprised by Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan on Tuesday that Prime Minister Imran Khan had full faith on the integrity and impartiality of judges.

In response to Supreme Court judges’ concern regarding the PM’s speech, the AGP stated that Imran Khan has great respect and regard for the Supreme Court and the judges of the court.

"In his Kamalia speech, he was referring to the unfortunate attack on the Supreme Court in 1997 and the circumstances leading to the highly controversial removal of late chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah. It was in that specific context that he was referring to his apprehensions. However, the prime minister unreservedly reiterates his full faith and confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the hon’ble judges of this court,” the AGP statement says.

A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, has directed Islamabad police to arrest PTI workers who attacked the Sindh House. The advocate general of Islamabad is asked to submit a report in this regard today (Wednesday).

Earlier, Islamabad AG Niazullah Niazi stated that the accused would be arrested in view of the new version of the FIR incorporated by the Sindh government.

Also read: Switching loyalties to change govt ‘a mockery of system’

 

Meanwhile, during the hearing of the presidential reference, the AGP stated that in case of defection under Article 63A of the Constitution, the court could hold lifetime disqualification by incorporating Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution. The court may hold that the defected MNA could be disqualified for five years or he could be just de-seated for the ongoing term.

The AG said that defection was worse than misdeclaration which led to lifetime disqualification for lawmakers. He also referred Samiullah Baloch judgment wherein the court justified lifetime disqualification for lawmakers in violation of Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution. The AGP concluded his arguments.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that going for re-election after defection was not an ordinary punishment. He wondered why lawmakers were being deprived of giving right of vote in view of Article 95 of the Constitution.

CJP Bandial noted that they were not legislators but they just could interpret the Constitution.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that none of the political parties stated that defection should be permitted.

The PML-N's attorney submitted written submissions. Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for PML-N, has started his arguments on the presidential reference.

In his written submission, he stated that reference is pre-mature, vague and speculative. It seeks declarations in advance with regard to the consequences which may flow from an “exercise of vote in a particular way by the members of National Assembly (MNAs) of a particular party on an as yet undetermined future day".

"The reference seeks the intervention of the court to eliminate dissent by declaring, as constitutional, a consequence not stated in the Constitution. The reference seeks nothing short of liquidating the political life and future, as legislators, of the dissenters. Dissent is sought to be curbed by suppressing dissenters. Democracy is sought to be purified, through the intervention of the court, by impeding the political process. Such pleas for purity cannot disguise what is, in fact, sought: a thwarting of the political process," the written submission says.

Also read: Arrest those who stormed Sindh House in 24 hours, orders SC

It is also stated that none of the members have defected in terms of Article 63A of the Constitution. Mere criticism of government or its head or its policies is not defection. Yet, the reference seeks that it be declared that anyone who so ventures, irrespective of the reasons for such action, will be disqualified for life from being elected as a legislator and his vote will be disregarded. Further, this declaration be made in advance, it adds.

"During the hearing of the reference, on March 21, 2022, the learned AGP candidly stated before this hon’ble court that the reference did not relate to nor shall it affect the resolution for vote of no-confidence presently pending before the National Assembly. That makes the questions posed by the reference purely academic.

"It is trite law that legal proceedings are not undertaken by the courts merely for academic reasons.
"Constitution elaborates what constitutes defection and its consequences, in Article 63A of the Constitution. It also states the procedure to be followed and the remedies available. These include a right of appeal to this hon’ble court. All the questions raised, in the reference, can be decided, if and when, they come in appeal before this hon’ble court, in an actual case.

"The reference, however, on the basis of assumptions, seeks a blanket ruling, in advance, with respect to a possible exercise of vote in a particular manner. This is both extraordinary and with great respect impermissible.

"The reference does not seek an opinion on a question of law of public importance. It seeks a re-writing of the Constitution. It wants this hon’ble court to read the word ‘disqualification’ into Article 63A of the Constitution. Further, on the premise that since no duration of alleged ‘disqualification’ is provided in Article 63A, the words ‘lifetime’ be read in by this hon’ble court. Further still, it seeks that the vote(s) against the prime minister by any member of his party be disregarded.

"The reference also does not seek an interpretation of constitutional text. It seeks to read the current political needs of the leader of a political party into the text of the Constitution under the thin guise of an unsullied and pure political process. At the same time its object is to intimidate and threaten.

"The partisan use of Article 186 by the president to satisfy such needs threatens to make one who is the head of the state and represents the unity of the republic a ‘football of the contending factions’.
"No questions of law of public importance have been raised in the reference which require an opinion from this hon’ble court. All that is sought is that the transient political expediency of the day be declared a constitutional principle," the written submission says.