Following Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari’s decision to reject the votes of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) members of the provincial assembly (MPAs), and subsequently declare Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Hamza Shehbaz the Punjab chief minister, majority lawyers have stated that the ruling was against the constitution, while some argue it was not, as the party head’s decision actually mattered.
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader and senior lawyer Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan termed the ruling of the PA deputy speaker against the constitution. He said the parliamentary leader’s direction was important to follow, and the PML-Q leaders did not violate the law.
Barrister Akram Raja shared similar views, saying that ruling of the deputy speaker was wrong as the PML-Q lawmakers acted in accordance with the direction of their party’s parliamentary leader.
The PTI also rejected the vote counts in the run-off election and claimed that seven members of the PML-N did not come to cast votes for their candidate.
However, Supreme Court Bar Association President Ahsan Bhoon said that ruling of the PA deputy speaker is correct, saying that the decision of the party head was binding upon the PML-Q lawmakers but they went against it.
Bhoon also pointed out that the decision (opinion) of the SC was not quite clear and it was the reason that they challenged it before the top court.
“There was confusion in that opinion that the party head’s decision was given weightage at one stage and parliamentary leader’s direction was declared important to follow at the other,” said Bhoon while speaking to a local TV channel.
PML-N Senator and senior lawyer Azam Nazir Tarar also claimed that PTI leaders were de-seated by the ECP after SC’s interpretation of Article 63-A.
“If the PML-Q lawmakers have acted against the will of their party head then how their votes could be counted. And we have a recent example of de-seated dissidents of the PTI,” said Tarar.
PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry shared an extract from the ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court on Article 63-A of the Constitution by highlighting the role and significance of the parliamentary leader of a party whose direction could not be violated.
The SC’s opinion read, “The basic object of Article 63-A of the Constitution is to ensure that a member of the parliament should not vote contrary to any direction issued by the parliamentary party to which he/she belongs and he/she should abstain from voting in the house as per the party policy.”
On the other hand, Parvez Elahi, who was the candidate in the run-off election against Hamza Shehbaz, declared the ruling of Dost Muhammad Mazari against the constitution.
“The deputy speaker must be tried under Article 6 of the Constitution,” said Elahi, adding that he [the deputy speaker] violated the constitution and also committed contempt of court by calling in police.
Elahi said they had a majority in the provincial assembly and he was chosen as candidate but the outcome was totally against him.
When asked about Shujaat Hussain and his letter, Parvez Elahi said, “Leave the matter of Chaudhry Shujaat at the moment, because it is all about the law and the constitution.”
“We have to talk about the deputy speaker. He violated the constitution,” he said angrily.
Raja Basharat, the senior leader of the PML-Q, however, reacted to the decision of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, saying that he did not have the authority to write that letter.
He raised another important question about the letter Shujaat had released before the election, saying why it was kept hidden and not shared with the PML-Q leaders.
“If letter had already been received to the deputy speaker before commencement of the election then why was it not disclosed,” he asked, pointing out that the deputy speaker disclosed the letter after completion of the election process.
“Such attitude of the deputy speaker speaks volumes of his bad intention,” said Basharat, holding Mazari responsible for a preplanned ‘rigging’.
He regretted over counting of votes as well. He said there had been two candidates but the votes’ count was announced separately for the PTI and the PML-Q.
“Parvez Elahi was the joint candidate of both PTI and the PML-Q but the votes’ count was announced separately. It was another mala fide intention of the deputy speaker,” he added. The PML-Q also stated that the 10 voters of the party had already cast their votes in favour of Elahi in the first round, so the first round was evident of the fact that the same would be considered and countered for the second phase [the Friday’s session].
The PTI and the PML-Q lawmakers and their supporters chanted slogans against PML-N, PPP leadership and demanded justice. They said that the public mandate was disrespected. The ruling of the deputy speaker also triggered the debate that whether the decision of the party’s head would be considered for votes’ status or decision of the parliamentary leader would be complied with.
It may be mentioned here that Sajid Bhatti, the PML-Q parliamentary leader, had directed party leaders to vote for Elahi and the PML-Q lawmakers followed his direction and refused to comply with the directions of Shujaat Hussain.
