Deadlock delays constitutional bill

NA, Senate sessions adjourned at eleventh hour Fazl opposes extension to CJ's tenure, fixed term Disagreement p

ISLAMABAD:

In a continuing political standoff, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N)-led ruling coalition and the Jamiat Ulma-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman remained at an impasse over the proposed constitutional package on Sunday.

Both the National Assembly and Senate, which were urgently convened to pass the proposed bill, ended their sessions without progress as the political leadership couldn't agree on draft amendments in a flurry of meetings that continued throughout the day, prolonging the political stalemate and delaying any potential resolution.

After changing the timing of the federal cabinet meeting as well as the parliamentary sessions, efforts were made to build up consensus over changes in the package at Maulana's residence and during the special committee's meetings held at the Parliament House. Finally, the sessions were adjourned till Monday (today) afternoon.

The special committee meetings, chaired by Khursheed Shah of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), met with frequent intervals but ended without reaching a resolution to the contentious issues, leaving the deadlock on the constitutional amendments unresolved.

The government presented the main points of the proposed amendments, but the draft was not provided to anyone. Though, Information Minister Ataullah Tarar said that the draft was shared with the JUI-F leadership.

However, JUI-F spokesperson Aslam Ghauri told The Express Tribune that no draft was shared with the party and everything was discussed verbally, adding that it was difficult to support what had not been shared in writing.

The opposition, including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), argued that it would be premature to commit to any details until the draft was made available. Following the committee meeting, PPP leader Khursheed Shah said that consultations were ongoing within the committee.

Khursheed Shah explained that the draft of the proposed constitutional amendments could not be released until it was approved by the federal cabinet – a prerequisite to pass the constitutional amendment bills before the passage through parliament.

Sources said that the deadlock persisted on the extension of the chief justice of Pakistan and establishment of the constitutional courts. They said that the JUI-F had so far been opposing any extension and raised a volley of questions.

They said that JUI-F's questions pertained to as to how the constitutional courts would be established, what would be the criteria of appointment of its judges and who would hear review appeals. They said that the JUI-F was opposing both the proposals: extension to CJP's tenure and three-year fixed term.

Another proposal which remained unresolved related to the trial of civilians in military courts and the right to appeal in civilian courts. The JUI-F officials revealed that the government intended to end the right to appeal after military court trial, but one couldn't support the amendment without reading the language of the proposed amendment.

This proposal was significant against the backdrop of recent arrest of the former spymaster as well as the reports about making former prime minister Imran Khan standing trial in the military courts. Officials privy to the developments also said that the change was being incorporated in connection with the trials of suspects allegedly involved in May 9 riots.

Among other things, the sources who were present during different meetings, confirmed to The Express Tribune that the proposed constitutional amendments, which remained mired in disagreement, included a proposal to increase the seats in the Balochistan Assembly – from the current 65 to 81 – and modifying the Article 63 to address the voting process of the dissenting members.

In a brief chat with different reporters, the information minister stated that no one should have the right to rewrite the Constitution, adding that it was the prerogative of parliament alone. This is also significant for the government as Article 63-A outlined the process to disqualify a lawmaker who voted against the party line in the assembly during the election of the prime minister or chief minister, vote of confidence or no-confidence and the budget.

In May 2022, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the presidential reference for the interpretation of the article, said that votes of defecting lawmakers would not be counted. The decision was instrumental in packing up the Hamza Shahbaz-led government in Punjab, which was formed with the support of 25 dissident PTI lawmakers, who voted in favour of the PMLN leader.

 

Further changes include a provision allowing Islamabad High Court judges to be transferred to other provincial high courts. The amendments also suggest that the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the judges of the apex court and high court be appointed jointly by the Judicial Commission and Parliamentary Committee.

Notably, the amendments propose modifying Articles 51(National Assembly), 63 (disqualification for membership of parliament), 175 (establishment and jurisdiction of courts), and 187 (issue and execution of processes of Supreme Court), aimed at overhauling several aspects of the Constitution.

Some sources said that changes were also being planned to be introduced in Article 59 (Senate), 106 (Constitution of provincial assemblies) 177 (appointment of CJP), 184 (original jurisdiction of SC), 193 (appointment of high court judges) and 208 (officers and servants of courts).

Commenting on the proposals, JUI-F leader Senator Maulana Ghafoor Haideri went on to say that the draft reading of these amendments could take up to a month, while the government was pushing to advance the bill as early as Monday. The statement highlighted the deep divisions and ongoing stalemate in the legislative process between the treasury and opposition benches.

Also, the JUI-F spokesperson said, the secrecy surrounding the constitutional amendments as well as the desire to quickly pass them was hurting the entire process more than anything, noting that the kind of changes being proposed should be openly been discussed and debated upon to develop better consensus. Instead, he quipped, the sessions were called first and consensus was being developed later on.