Lawyers conclude arguments on Hamza’s oath-taking

A larger bench of the LHC heard different petitions including three ICAs

LAHORE:

The lawyers from the PML-N, PTI and other parties concluded their arguments on Wednesday on petitions challenging three Lahore High Court (LHC) orders, Hamza Shehbaz’s oath as Punjab chief minister and the procedure adopted to conduct his election on the slot.

A larger bench of the LHC headed by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan heard different petitions including three intra-court appeals (ICAs) against the LHC orders — one against LHC’s Justice Jawad Hassan’s decision who had directed the National Assembly speaker to administer oath to Hamza — two against LHC Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti’s decisions whereby he had first ordered the president to nominate anyone to administer oath to Hamza and then advised the Punjab governor to ensure the administration of oath.

As the proceedings commenced, the bench’s head asked former Punjab advocate general Ahmed Awais whether he would argue on remarks given in a judgment about the governor and the president.

Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi, another member of the bench, questioned where the remarks would stand if the court sets aside the letter through which Hamza was notified as the chief minister.

Former AGP Awais replied that the remarks would become infructuous. On which ground they will become infructuous, the bench’s member asked.

The bench asked Mansoor Usman Awan Advocate, representing CM Hamza, whether or not the Supreme Court’s judgment had a retrospective affect.

The lawyer gave citations arguing that the apex court had the right to apply its judgments retrospectively. He said if the court was interpreting a new constitutional provision then its judgment had a retrospective effect.

Also read 'SC's Article 63-A order not applicable to Punjab CM election'

Had the election on CM’s slot been challenged before May 17, the top court’s judgment would have had the retrospective effect, he argued.

PTI’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar requested the court to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment rather than going into whether or not the matter had a retrospective effect.

The bench put a query, asking that the PTI did not go to the courts against the election on CM’s slot right after the polls held on April 16, adding that the party approached the courts after the decision of the SC.

Justice Shahid Jamil Khan asked whether the bench could set aside the notification through which Hamza was notified as Punjab CM. Justice Sadaqat questioned if the bench could render the role of a presiding officer.

The PTI’s counsels argued that the bench had the power to set aside the notification and the “illegal process” through which the contest on CM’s slot was held in the assembly.

They implored the court that the bench would have to set aside the notification first if the order for re-polling came.

Mirza Nasar Ahmed, a representative of the federation, argued that the apex court’s judgment had no retrospective effect, adding that the application was filed in the Supreme Court on April 14 while the election on CM’s slot was held on April 16.

Also read PTI to challenge Hamza’s election as Punjab CM

 

Advocate Azhar Siddique, representing PTI’s MPAs, said that all steps taken since May 31 would be set aside if the oath of Hamza was declared null and void.

Is an inquiry on the matter of election present? Justice Shahid asked. PTI’s lawyer Amir Saeed replied that the assembly’s secretary had dispatched a report to the governor.

Can this bench declare the assembly secretary’s report valid or in accordance with law, which rules allow him to prepare a report, Justice Shahid questioned.

The deputy speaker says he held the election on the directions of the LHC but nothing has been written anywhere in the order that the police would enter the assembly chambers, the PTI’s counsel said.

Usama Khawar Ghuman Advocate, representing deputy speaker, said that Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari had held the election in accordance with the law despite the fact he was physically assaulted.

The court heard detailed arguments from all lawyers representing the president, PTI, Punjab governor, Punjab CM, deputy speaker and other MPAs.

Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till Thursday (today). The court may start proceedings on some new points or may announce the decision.