Speaker acted in ill-will!

The deputy speaker prima facie stands in breach of his constitutional duty. The Supreme Court, on Thursday, in a detailed judgment listing out the legal aspects behind its decision to set aside the April 3 ruling of the National Assembly that dismissed the no-confidence motion against the then prime minister Imran Khan, categorically observed that the proceedings of fateful day were ultra vires, and failed to qualify for protection of internal proceedings of parliament under Article 69(1). This reasoning will add a new chapter in jurisprudence, and apparently comes to aid the sovereignty of the elected house. It is an earnest attempt to ward off misuse of power, especially through knee-jerk reactions, and that too at the cost of established precedents of constitutional supremacy.

The verdict dilates that the speaker acted in violation of parliamentary norms, as well as constitutional provisions, and it was a unilateral decision. This is why the honourable chief justice is of the view that while no recourse was made to solicit vote or opinion from the august house in quashing the no-confidence motion, it was without any appropriate reasoning and at the same devoid of the spirit of the constitution. The snowball reaction of the Speaker’s stunt, especially in the hurried way he read out his testimony and adjourned the sitting, made it clear that it lacked the confidence of the house and backing of law. Subsequently, the incumbent prime minister’s decision to advise the dissolution of the National Assembly was based on the ill-judgment of the Speaker, which the court described as a “constitutionally repugnant outcome of avoiding the no-trust motion without a vote by the assembly”.

The apex court has cleared the mist on a host of misgivings, in which the judiciary’s assertiveness over parliamentary domain was questioned. The decision goes on to state that the court’s foremost priority is maintenance of constitutional order, and in doing so it thought it appropriate to restore the National Assembly. In this way, the judiciary not only paved the way for upholding the constitution but also reintroduced the usurped space through an interpretative act of the Speaker, by subsequently enabling the house to exercise its writ to vote on a motion that was on the agenda. By enabling the legislators to vote on the motion under Article 95(2), the court has simply upheld the right of decision-making by the appropriate forum.

Notwithstanding the crystal clear detailing, what came as a surprise is the observation that the text of the cypher was not shared with the elite judiciary. This is contrary to the claim repeatedly made by the ousted PTI dispensation that the content — allegedly received from Washington — had been duly disseminated for necessary action. Likewise, the court said that there wasn’t any precedent to take suo motu notice on cypher and act in affairs of national defence. This aspect will stir a debate and will chart out a course of its own in times to come.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 15^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.