Farooq Naeem—AFP
In unanimous verdict, five-member bench says deputy speaker’s ruling illegal and all subsequent steps must be reversed
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday, in a unanimous verdict, restored the National Assembly after declaring that the deputy speaker’s dismissal of the opposition’s vote of no-confidence was “unconstitutional.”
Reading out the short order, the five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial ruled that as the deputy speaker’s ruling was illegal, all subsequent steps were also rendered illegal. It said that Prime Minister Imran Khan could not advise President Arif Alvi to dissolve the Lower House of Parliament, as he was still facing a vote of no-confidence when he did so. Similarly, all the steps taken by the president to form an interim government are illegal, as they followed on steps that have been declared void.
The court directed Speaker Asad Qaiser to convene a session of the National Assembly on Saturday, April 9, adding that voting on the no-confidence resolution would proceed at 10 a.m. on that day and should be completed by 10:30 a.m.
Prior to issuing their ruling, the Supreme Court summoned Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Dilshad and questioned him on the Election Commission of Pakistan’s stance on early elections. He said that while the electoral body was ready for elections, it needed 6-8 months to complete delimitation of constituencies.
The five-member bench, including Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, had earlier said that they were clear on one thing: “The deputy speaker’s ruling was wrong.”
Justice Mandokhail, ahead of the ruling, said the court would deliver its verdict in accordance with law, and not on the basis of its potential fallout. “The court’s sole duty is to render its judgment in line with the rule of law,” he stressed. To concerns from opposition lawmakers about the PTI branding them as “traitors,” he said that if the deputy speaker’s ruling was negated, the allegations of treason would also be rendered void.
The court also summoned Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Shahbaz Sharif to the rostrum on the final day of hearings. “Our history is replete with constitutional tampering,” he regretted and appealed to the apex court to restore the dissolved National Assembly. Stressing that the opposition had the support of 177 MNAs—five more than the 172 needed to oust Imran Khan—he said that he wanted to assure the court that the coalition government would not fail. “We will work day and night to protect the Constitution,” he added.
Referring to the bench’s remarks on the deputy speaker’s ruling being wrong, he said that if it was wrong, then all the steps that had come about after it—the dissolution of the National Assembly, the announcement of a caretaker setup—were also wrong and needed to be reversed.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the PMLN, had appealed to the court to not allow the president, the prime minister and the speaker to misuse Article 58 of the Constitution, which empowers the president to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the premier. “If this is allowed to go unpunished, similar situations will arise in future,” he had warned.
The day’s proceedings concluded with the judges summoning PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari to the rostrum. The opposition leader stressed that the Constitution was paramount, adding that it contained the mechanisms required for free and fair elections.
On Sunday, Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri dismissed the opposition’s no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan after interim law minister Chaudhry Fawad Hussain alleged that it was part of a “foreign conspiracy” and invoked Article 5 (loyalty to the state) to have it thrown out. Immediately after the dismissal, Suri prorogued the session indefinitely.
Within minutes of the session’s conclusion, the prime minister—in a prerecorded message—announced he had advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly and urged the public to prepare for early elections. Alvi, within hours, dissolved the Lower House and began steps to form an interim setup.
The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the development after large swathes of the public, legal experts and senior judges lamented the “blatant” violation of the Constitution. Proceedings commenced on Sunday (April 3), and have continued daily since. The apex court has heard deliberations from the legal counsels of all political parties, including the PPP, PMLN, JUIF and PTI, as well as the lawyers for the deputy speaker and speaker, the prime minister and the Attorney General for Pakistan.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said one thing was clear: “The deputy speaker’s ruling was wrong.” He reiterated that the case would be decided today, adding that he regretted that the case could not be concluded earlier, as the court had to grant the right to be heard to all stakeholders.
Earlier, the lawyer for Suri and Speaker Asad Qaiser, Naeem Bukhari, argued that the Supreme Court had refrained from interfering in parliamentary proceedings in the past and questioned whether any intervention would be merited if the speaker had dismissed Chaudhry Fawad Hussain’s point of order. “When assemblies were dissolved in the past, the election process was not stopped even though it was declared unconstitutional,” he said, referring to the “doctrine of necessity” that the court has repeatedly asserted is a part of Pakistan’s history that it does not desire to return to.
To questions by judges on which law allowed the speaker to dismiss the no-confidence motion, Bukhari said a point of order could be raised at any time. “Voting on the no-confidence motion is a constitutional requirement,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted, questioning if the rules could be used to invalidate this constitutional right.
“Shouldn’t the opposition have been given a chance to [respond] to the point of order?” the CJP repeatedly asked of government lawyers.
At one point, the court also examined the minutes of Parliamentary Committee on National Security, during which contents of the ‘threat letter’ were shared with parliamentarians. Lawyer Bukhari claimed that the parliamentary body was told there would be consequences if the no-trust motion failed.
Justice Mandokhail also noted that the ruling was announced by the deputy speaker but carried the signature of the speaker. “Where is the deputy speaker’s signature,” he asked. He also pointed out that the minutes of the parliamentary committee meeting didn’t prove if the deputy speaker was present.
The judge asked whether the foreign minister was present during the parliamentary committee meeting, noting that his signature was not included in the record. “Shouldn’t the foreign minister have been present?” the judge asked, which prompted the lawyer to admit the minister should have been present but had been on an official visit to China.
The CJP, meanwhile, pointed out that National Security Adviser Moeed Yusuf’s name was also not included in the record.
Throughout the proceedings, government and PTI lawyers have stressed on the speaker’s rulings being beyond reproach under Article 69 of the Constitution. The opposition, meanwhile, has maintained that the Constitution does not allow for the dismissal of any resolution of no-confidence until it has been voted upon. They have also pointed out that the government claims to have received the alleged “threat letter” on March 7, but did not object to the submission of the resolution of no-confidence on March 8, and even allowed the vote to proceed on March 28.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan pointed out that if the assembly had not been dissolved, the House could have suspended the deputy speaker’s ruling through a resolution. “The prime minister took advantage of the situation and dissolved the assembly,” he said. “The no-confidence resolution, which had a constitutional backing and was liable to be succeeded, was scuttled at the last minute,” the CJP said, adding that if “we permit such a deviation” then it would amount to what advocate Salahuddin Ahmed had referred to during proceedings on Tuesday.
Representing the Sindh High Court Bar Association, Ahmed had referred to 1933, when the speaker of the then German assembly had branded members of the Communist Party as traitors and allowed voting on a constitutional amendment that permitted Adolf Hitler and his cabinet with the authority to bring any law without a formal approval of the parliament. That development had resulted in Germany descending into fascism, he added.
Threat letter
The PTI has claimed that it received a diplomatic cable, authored by its envoy to the U.S. on the basis of his discussions with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, on March 7. According to the PTI, the envoy had claimed that Lu had informed him that ties between the U.S. and Pakistan could not be improved under any government led by Imran Khan. It claims that the U.S. official had said that “all would be forgiven” if a new government came into power.
The opposition has alleged that the “letter” contains fabricated statements and the actual content does not contain anything alleging a foreign conspiracy to oust Khan. Lending credence to their claims, sources within the security establishment have told media that they did not find any evidence of the conspiracy alleged by the prime minister.