Senator demands repeal of 'hasty' pro-military courts resolution

JI lawmaker submits resolution to senate secretariat seeking annulment of controversial decision


Our Correspondent November 16, 2023
PHOTO: APP/FILE

print-news

ISLAMABAD:

Senator Mushtaq Ahmed on Wednesday submitted a resolution to the Senate Secretariat, calling for the annulment of a previous resolution passed by the upper house against the Supreme Court's decision on military courts.

The Jamaat-e-Islami senator criticised Monday’s resolution's passing, citing the absence of prior agenda discussions. He questioned the hasty approval in disregard of the regulations in favour of military courts and urged for its immediate withdrawal.In his resolution, he highlighted the pivotal role of the Supreme Court as the guardian of the constitution.

"The Senate stands behind the Supreme Court's decision on military courts," asserted the resolution.It is pertinent to note that the contentious resolution had been introduced by independent senator Dilawar Khan and found support solely from Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) senators.

The resolution labelled the Supreme Court's October 23rd verdict as an "attempt to rewrite the law" and accused it of encroaching upon the legislative authority of the parliament. It explicitly called for the Supreme Court to "reconsider" its decision.

What stirred further controversy was Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani's allowance of the resolution without any substantial debate. The resolution was swiftly put to a vote after the completion of the agenda, merely moments before adjourning the session.

The crucial decision was made when only a dozen members were present in the house.Only two senators, Raza Rabbani of the PPP and Mushtaq Ahmed of the JI, raised objections to the hastiness of the resolution's approval. However, their protests were disregarded by Sanjrani, adding to the uproar surrounding the entire process.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ