Govt retreats in face of stiff opposition

ISLAMABAD:

The PML-N-led ruling coalition faced a stinging setback on Monday as its desperate efforts to table a crucial constitutional amendment bill collapsed after JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman refused to back the government's secretly proposed package.

With the bill stalled, the ruling coalition was left licking its wounds, vowing to try again, as its attempts to bring Maulana on board, including weekend parliamentary sessions, came to nought.

The once key ally, held firm on his refusal to throw weight behind the amendments despite intense lobbying, leaving the government's hopes in tatters.

The ruling coalition had pulled all the stops—convening National Assembly and Senate sessions in rapid succession—only to find itself empty-handed as the JUI-F chief remained unmoved.

To add to the coalition's woes, the federal cabinet, crucial to greenlighting the bill, was left in limbo on Sunday.

Despite rescheduling its meeting multiple times in hopes of securing Maulana's support, the government couldn't hold the session—delaying the bill's presentation in Parliament.

The meeting was delayed multiple times, with officials clinging to the hope that Maulana would eventually give his nod.

Adding to the confusion, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, who kept denying even the existence of the bill last week, didn't raise any questions on the veracity of the leaked draft and admitted that it hasn't been presented before the cabinet yet.

The flurry of visits to Maulana's residence and discussions in the special committee of the parliament could not convince the JUI-F chief to give his party's eight votes in the National Assembly and five in the Senate – both crucial for passing the proposed bill – to the treasury benches.

The government needed votes of JUIF, which sits on opposition benches, to reach the magic figure of 224 votes out of 336 in NA and 64 out of 85 in the Senate. However, it didn't happen till Monday.

Moreover, observers noted that the government's clandestine push for constitutional amendments has been nothing short of a farce.

The administration's attempt to manoeuvre the bill through in secrecy and then claim in the National Assembly that it was not shared because it wasn't finalised left many scratching their heads as to why was it being rushed 'in the dark of night' when it was still in draft form.

To add insult to injury, sitting ministers openly admitted that the leaked draft making the rounds in the media was not only genuine but intended to address constitutional imbalances and fulfil the unfinished business of the Charter of Democracy (COD).

Faced with the failure to pass the bill after convening both houses, the treasury benches pledged to reintroduce it after achieving consensus—a step it skipped in its initial rush to push the bill through.

Reacting to the law minister's statement where he admitted on Sunday night that he had got the draft PTI leader Asad Qaiser took the government to task, questioning why the bill had been kept under wraps and why the government was trying to force it through "by hook or by crook" over the weekend.

He pointedly asked, "If the intent was good, why try to pass it in the dead of night without discussion?"

Qaiser also questioned the moral authority of the government to push for the bill as he claimed that PTI lawmakers were allegedly abducted and kept at Punjab House to complete two-thirds majority – the numbers required for passing a constitutional amendment bill. He said PTI would fight against such moves in and outside the parliament.

During his speech, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that the constitutional amendment draft aimed at removing the constitutional imbalance and undoing the 19th Amendment, introducing a new system for appointments in the superior courts.

He said the parliament's prime job was to legislate and there was no politics involved in it. He said that the bill would be presented before the House when a consensus was reached on it.

Asif pointed out that the PML-N and the PPP had signed the Charter of Democracy (COD) and both parties wanted to bring amendments to the constitution in line with the broad-based-consensus document.

He opined that the establishment of a constitutional court was also a part of the COD, arguing there were several countries where such constitutional courts exist.

Shocking the house by revealing that 2.7 million cases were pending in different courts, he said that there would be no political interest if an attempt was made to reduce the burden on the judiciary and make peoples' lives easier.

Asif said that parliament's role in appointing judges should not be a rubber stamp, saying its role should be a manifestation of the people's power.

 

 

'A mere working paper'

Meanwhile, Tarar while responding to Qaiser said that the draft would be brought forward once the bill was presented before the federal cabinet. He then explained the process of how the bill is presented before the cabinet and Cabinet Committee for Disposal of Legislative Cases (CCLC).

The CCLC examines the cases of fresh legislation as well as amendments to the existing laws and gives its recommendations whether they are to be introduced in the parliament or otherwise, subject to ratification by the cabinet.

Referring to the proposed constitutional amendment, Tarar said it was more of a "working paper" at the moment and its draft would be brought forward after getting the cabinet's approval.

He said the proposed package envisaged the formation of the judicial commission as per the spirit of the 18th Amendment and it was proposed to empower the commission to evaluate the performance of high court judges.

After failing to table the constitutional amendment bill, Tarar revealed that a judicial package containing 90 amendments would soon be presented, saying it aims to address basic flaws in the judicial system and would help provide swift and cheap justice to the common man.

During his speech, he while objecting to the words like 'passing the bill in the dark of night' said that the situation wasn't like that and reminded the house that some feel it's the right time to do a thing while others disagree with it. He added that "we have made ourselves weak", adding "because of our mistakes the power has been shifted on the other side of the wall".

 

Meanwhile, PPP leader Naveed Qamar said that an amendment like the one being discussed could only happen with everyone's input. He urged that things should be looked at from a broader and futuristic perspective instead of looking from the lens of today's politics, adding political parties should sit together and talk about all the issues.

Nevertheless, soon after proroguing the National Assembly and Senate sessions after failing to achieve objectives, the ruling alliance renewed its efforts again. On one hand, PML-N's Irfan Siddiqui reportedly said that the government has decided to present the much-anticipated constitutional amendments during the next session of the National Assembly.

On the other hand, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari met Maulana to discuss the proposed constitutional amendments.

The meeting has come on the heels of a continuing political standoff where the PML-led ruling coalition and the JUIF chief remained at an impasse over the proposed constitutional package.

The political leadership couldn't agree on draft amendments in a flurry of meetings, prolonging the political stalemate and delaying any potential resolution. Resultantly, the hurriedly-called sessions of both houses were prorogued without achieving the goal of passing the 26th amendment in the Constitution.

 

Key changes in proposed bill

According to the proposed amendment in Article 63A of the Constitution, the vote of a member who votes against the direction of the parliamentary party will be counted and not disregarded.

 

In May 2022, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the presidential reference for the interpretation of the article, said votes of defecting lawmakers would not be counted.

The decision was instrumental in packing up the transient Hamza Seahbaz-led government in Punjab which was formed with the support of 25 dissident PTI lawmakers who voted in favour of the PML-N leader.

The major changes include the establishment of a Federal Constitutional Court (FSC) parallel to the Supreme Court. Article 175B (constitution of FSC) stated that the FSC shall consist of a chief justice to be known as the chief justice of the FSC of Pakistan and so many judges as may be determined by an act of Parliament or, until so determined, as may be fixed by the president.

It says that each province shall have an equal number in the FSC.

Amendment in Article 176 would make the chief justice of Pakistan only the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Article 178A (retiring age) proposed that a judge of FSC shall hold the office until he attains the age of 68 years unless he sooner resigns or is removed. It said that a person who has held the office of SC shall stay a judge of FSC for a term of three years unless sooner resigns or is removed.

Substitution in Article 184 (original jurisdiction of the federal constitutional court) stated that FSC shall, to the exclusion of every other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more governments.

Clause 5 of it stated that all petitions and appeals or review applications against judgments rendered or orders passed under this article, pending or filed before the Supreme Court prior to commencement of the 26th Constitution Amendment Act 2024 forthwith stand transferred to the FSC and shall only be heard and decided by that court.

Amendment in Article 193 states that a person shall not be appointed as a judge of a high court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and doesn't hold dual citizenship of a foreign state.

A change in Article 199 bars a high court from taking suo motu in any matter on its own. Amendment in Article 200 allows the president to transfer a judge of a high court to another high court but not without his consent and before consulting the chiefs of both the high courts.

Under Article 209, it was proposed that the Supreme Judicial Council shall consist of the chief justice of FSC, the CJ of SC, the next senior most judge of FSC and the two most senior chief justices of high courts.

The proposed new clause in Article 243 (command of armed forces) stated: "(5) The appointment, re-appointment, extension, service limits, retirement or removal of the services chiefs mentioned in Clause (4) shall be in accordance with the provisions of the laws relating to the Armed Forces."

Amendment in entry 2 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution proposed that the expression "local taxes, fees in respect of any services, cess, charges, tolls in such areas," shall be inserted. The original reads as "Military, naval and air force works; local self-government in cantonment areas, the authorities, the regulation of house accommodation in such areas, and the delimitation of such areas."

For the appointment of judges of the high courts and the FSC, the commission was proposed to consist of the chief justice of the federal constitutional court; two most senior judges each of FSC and SC; law minister; AGP; a senior advocate; and two members each from NA and Senate.

Insertion of Article 9A (clean and healthy environment) entitles every person to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Amendment in Article 48 says that any advice tendered to the President by the cabinet or PM shall not be inquired into in or by any court, tribunal or other authority.