Living by the law: ‘Neither CM nor speaker ordered civil disobedience’
“It is a totally incorrect allegation that the CM and speaker attacked the Parliament House and Pakistan Television Centre (PTV). It is also incorrect that public money and resources were used [for the Islamabad sit-in],” the chief secretary informed the court through his written reply in a case filed for the disqualification of Khattak and Qaiser.
The division bench of Chief Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Haider Ali Khan was hearing a writ petition against both PTI leaders for their participation in anti-government protests in Islamabad and the alleged endorsement of civil disobedience. The petition was filed by PHC Bar Association Secretary General Muhammad Ayaz Khan.
“The petition is not maintainable against respondent 1 (CM) as he is not answerable to any court for the exercise of power and performance of functions in respect to his office. The allegations in the petitions are not supported by any document,” stated the written reply.
During the course of the hearing, Muhammad Ayaz told the bench that both the CM and speaker took an oath to preserve the Constitution and stay within the law. However, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan urged civil disobedience and it was endorsed by these two, he argued.
Ayaz further stated the people of K-P suffered as their public representatives were busy with the Islamabad sit-in. He alleged public money was used in the protest and this was clearly against the law.
K-P Advocate General Abdul Latif Yousafzai told the court that the chief secretary had filed his comments in the case. He argued the petition was not maintainable as there was no documented proof of the allegations. Yousafzai added the chief minister and provincial speaker filed applications to set aside the ex parte proceedings ordered against them during the previous hearing.
The chief justice consequently set aside the ex parte proceedings against Khattak and Qaiser. He directed their attorney Humayun Khalil to submit their written replies before the next date of hearing in this case.
Chief Secretary Amjid Ali Khan had stated in his reply there was no evidence to support the claim that the CM and assembly speaker violated their oath. Also, the provincial government is functioning in accordance with the Constitution and law, he said.
“No such directions or orders were issued or received by respondent 3 (chief secretary). It is totally denied that the respondents abandoned their official activities and business in the province,” the reply stated.
On October 13, the PHC ordered ex parte proceedings in the case as written comments had not been filed. Also, neither the counsel of the CM nor the speaker was present in court. Ex parte is a legal term which allows a judge to decide on a case without all parties involved being present in court.
“It is also learnt through reliable sources that the CM and speaker consumed public money and resources from the provincial government to facilitate and finance the sit-in protest, which I consider to be dishonesty and corruption of the worst degree,” Ayaz’s petition reads.
It also stated that the CM and speaker had sworn to defend the Constitution, but their conduct was a clear and vivid violation of the oath of their respective offices.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 14th, 2014.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ