No-trust motion: BHC rejects Bhootani's application against his ouster

Bhootani says his removal was in violation of the Constitution and rules of procedure.


Web Desk December 31, 2012

QUETTA: The Balochistan High Court rejected an application filed by former speaker of the Balochistan Assembly, Muhammad Aslam Bhootani, against his ouster through a secret ballot on December 26, Express News reported on Monday.

Bhootani had said that his removal was in violation of the Constitution and rules of procedure.

The former speaker was removed from his position after a majority of assembly members voted in favour of a no-trust motion against him.

Forty-seven members voted in favour of the motion while one voted against it. Around 15 members did not attend today’s session. The provincial assembly comprises 63 members.

The members were caught on screen showing their ballots to other members before polling – a move in clear violation of the secret ballot code.

The no-confidence motion was moved against Bhootani after he refused to chair assembly sessions.

Calling it a principled stance in the light of Supreme Court’s October 12 interim order on Balochistan, Bhootani had said that “until the government of Balochistan’s constitutional status is determined, I will not preside over any session.”

The SC, in its interim order in the Balochistan law and order case, ruled that the Balochistan government has failed to implement the Constitution and in protecting the basic human rights in the province.

COMMENTS (1)

HH | 11 years ago | Reply

this guy has made on big fool out of himself. first he goes against his own democratically elected assembly by following SC's whimsical order proclaiming that the BA has lost its "constitutional right" to function and now get's his appeal rejected by the same judiciary (BHC in this case). In the end, he loses his seat, face and probably his political future.

serves him right.

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