LHC asks CM not to violate undertaking about dissolution

LAHORE:

With a clear direction that Punjab Chief Minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi should not violate the undertaking of not dissolving the provincial assembly, the Lahore High Court (LHC) sought further arguments by Thursday (today) on the Elahi’s plea against the governor’s two orders, including the de-notification of his cabinet.

A larger bench of the LHC, led by Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh heard the case. As proceedings commenced, Justice Sheikh asked Elahi’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar and the Federation whether they had reached any consensus over the matter of time frame for the vote of confidence.

Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan argued that sufficient time had been given for the vote, but the chief minister failed to obtain it. “If both parties agree on a date, [otherwise] this bench will fix that date for the vote of confidence,” Justice Aziz remarked.

At that point, Barrister Zafar argued that they did not agree due to some reasons that establish the illegality of the governor. Justice Aziz asked whether the barrister understood that the prevailing political circumstances were enough for the vote, wondering whether he would stick to his argument.

Barrister Zafar said that not only they had to look at the circumstances, but they also needed to see what the Constitution said about the matter. Justice Aziz remarked that if the barrister was not interested in reaching a consensus, then the court would hear the matter on merit.

Zafar told the court that he had no objection to this, and went on to describe how Elahi was elected as the chief minister and the subsequent constitutional crisis that followed with the then deputy speaker, who discarding 10 votes of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q).

He also highlighted that the Supreme Court (SC) had set aside Dost Muhammad Mazari’s ruling. He argued that the matter was purely between Speaker Muhammad Sibtain Khan and Governor Balighur Rehman, wondering why his client was de-notified.

He said that the governor directed the chief minister under the relevant article, requiring him to obtain the vote of confidence, but the speaker did not agree with the reasons. He added that the speaker did not agree with the short time given by the governor for that purpose.

Neither the governor could summon an assembly session when one was already in progress, nor the speaker’s ruling had been challenged at any forum by the governor, he pointed out. He wondered how could the chief minister be de-notified.

He further said that there was no effort on the chief minister’s part which could establish that he deliberately restrained himself from taking the vote. “When there is a scuffle between A and B, how the C could be punished?” he asked.

At this point, Justice Aziz remarked that constitutionally, the governor could direct the chief minister to obtain the vote of confidence. “If the governor exercises his power under this clause, the floor of the house is to be tested,” he remarked.

Two ways of removal

Barrister Zafar argued that there were two ways to remove chief minister – one related to a resolution submitted with 20% lawmakers and the second one was about the governor directing the chief minister to take vote of confidence.

Differentiating between the two, he argued that the chief minister could dissolve the assembly if the governor directed him to get the vote of confidence. However, he added, the chief minister could not dissolve the assembly after the process started on a resolution submitted by the lawmakers.

The parameters

The Constitution required cogent reasons if a chief minister was asked to take a vote of confidence, he argued. On that, Justice Aziz asked what the parameters of the second approach were? The counsel replied that the Constitution required the chief minister took the vote of confidence if they lost majority.

“For the sake of argument, if PTI’s [Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf] 91 and the PML-Q’s six lawmakers approach the governor and inform him that they have no confidence in the chief minister, which means the chief minister has lost the majority of the lawmakers’ confidence,” he said.

“Then he would have to obtain the vote of confidence. But it could not be considered a cogent reason if governor dreams that chief minister has lost majority and waking up next morning, he directs the chief minister to take a vote of confidence,” he explained.

Playing with the constitution

Barrister Zafar further argued that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawmakers submitted a no-trust motion in the Punjab Assembly on the same day as the governor directed the chief minister to get the vote of confidence.

The purpose of PML-N’s withdrawal of the no-trust motion was that it lacked the required number in its camp, he added. On the other hand, the PTI had to show its strength in the vote of confidence directed by the governor, he pointed out. “This is a real example of the mockery of the Constitution. This is all done by the PML-N when the matter was still pending in court,” he asserted.

Justice Aziz observed that there was an apex court judgment about whether or not the governor could summon the session for the purpose of a vote of confidence, when an assembly session was already in progress.

Secondly, sufficient time would be granted to the chief minister for the vote of confidence, he added. He asked the barrister to shed light on his third point that the governor did not elaborate on cogent reasons requiring the chief minister to take the vote.

During his arguments, Barrister Zafar termed the reasons expressed by the governor as “irrelevant and immature”. However, the court directed him to put forth his further arguments on January 12 (today).