US again snubs Imran’s claim of regime change bid

State Dept spokesperson says Washington doesn’t support one political party over another

ISLAMABAD:

The US on Tuesday again refuted the allegations levelled by Prime Minister Imran Khan that Washington was seeking a regime change in Islamabad by supporting opposition parties’ no-confidence move against him.

“There is absolutely no truth to the allegations. As you heard from me last week, we support the peaceful upholding of constitutional democratic principles,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in response to a question at a daily press briefing.

“That is the case in Pakistan; it is the case around the world,” he added.

Premier Imran had claimed that there was a "foreign-funded plot" being hatched to oust his government through a vote of no-confidence motion moved by the opposition parties in the National Assembly.

Subsequently, President Arif Alvi on Sunday dissolved the lower house of parliament on the advice of the prime minister, hours after NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri declared the opposition’s no-trust move “unconstitutional” and prorogued the house without voting on it.

“We do not support one political party over another,” Price said.

“We support the broader principles, the principles of rule of law, of equal justice under the law.”

Read: No credible evidence of ‘foreign plot’ against Imran govt, says official

Suri had dismissed the motion on the grounds that it was linked to a “foreign conspiracy” to oust the PTI government.

He had ruled that motion was contradictory to Article 5 of the Constitution.

The two clauses under Article 5 state that loyalty to the State was the basic duty of every citizen and obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

Later, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial took suo motu notice of the development and formed a five-judge larger bench, headed by himself and also comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, to hear the case.

The PML-N lawyer told the bench that if the Supreme Court wanted to check loyalty of the members and leadership of the opposition parties, it could opt for an “in-camera” briefing in the chamber from the head of the premier agency of the country.

He added that the Suri's ruling was against the spirit of the Constitution. “Article 95 of the Constitution has been left ‘redundant' by this ruling.”

Article 95 pertains to the no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

He further argued that Article 69 of the Constitution did not prevent the court from examining the matter.

According to Article 69, the validity of any proceedings in parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

The CJP replied that the court would was only looking at the law and Constitution and wanted to see if it could review the ruling of the deputy speaker.