PTI to approach SC against LHC's Hamza Shahbaz ruling

Fawad Chaudhry says high court's ruling 'flawed', has further aggravated ongoing political crisis in Punjab

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry pictured during a presser, in Islamabad on Jan. 25, 2022. SCREENGRAB

LAHORE:

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader and former federal minister Fawad Chaudhry said on Thursday that the party will approach the Supreme Court against the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) ruling on Hamza Shahbaz's election as Punjab chief minister.

The former minister said the LHC's ruling was flawed and the decision has further aggravated the ongoing political crisis in the province.

“The government has not survived, but the solution that has been given will not end the crisis,” he said.

Stating that the party will approach the apex court, Fawad Chaudhry added that a legal committee had been convened to discuss the “flaws” of the ruling.

Earlier on Thursday, the LHC declared the election of Hamza Shahbaz as Punjab CM void, and ordering a recount of votes excluding PTI dissidents. The high court also admitted the PTI’s petitions challenging the CM's election for hearing.

Read Lawyers conclude arguments on Hamza’s oath-taking

The PTI, in their writ petitions, had stated that Hamza's election in the Punjab Assembly was "illegal", did not follow due processes, and that his notification as the chief of Punjab must also be set aside as it was not in line with the law. A third petition pleaded that Hamza's oath-taking be declared illegal.

The five-member larger bench gave a 4:1 decision on the matter.

"The decision by the August Supreme Court of not counting votes of defecting members of a political party is squarely applicable to the election of Chief Minister held on 14th April 2022," said the judgement.

According to the written judgement from the LHC, it was an "undeniable fact" that 25 PTI MPAs had voted in favour of Hamza Shahbaz, despite the party nominating PML-Q leader Pervez Elahi as its candidate. The dissident lawmakers' move went against Article 63 A(1)(b) of the Constitution.

RELATED

Load Next Story