Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Thursday said that the court won’t intervene in political matters as it continued the hearing of a petition pertaining to the resignations of PTI lawmakers in the National Assembly.
The petitioners’ counsel Ali Zafar argued that the accepted resignations were not processed in accordance with Article 64. The court, however, expressed its reservations as it asked what the purpose of the petition was in the first place. “Is this party policy?” inquired the court directing the petitioners to prove their bona fides. “The court does not interfere in the affairs of the Parliament,” the court remarked as it observed that “these are political matters and the forum to resolve them is the parliament”.
“Satisfy the court that these 10 members wish to return to the parliament,” CJ Minallah said as he observed that the petitioners in the case “are saying that they have submitted genuine resignations [and thus] this is not a matter of going back to the Speaker but merely a technical one”.
PTI’s lawyer nonetheless maintained that the resignations had been conditional and that “if they were not accepted together, then they are all still MNAs”. Zafar also claimed that recent audio leaks had revealed that the speaker had been consulting other party members. “The audio leaks have revealed that only 11 members’ resignations were approved” as part of the ruling government’s political strategy, said the PTI lawyer adding that “we had given conditional resignations. Our political goal was to empty all 123 seats, if that purpose was not fulfilled then we believe we are still MNAs”.
“On the one hand you say that you do not accept the parliament and on the other, you say that you wish to do a formality,” CJ Minallah remarked. “We will decide on [whether or not to go to] the parliament later,” responded Zafar. “If these petitioners are against party policy then submit an affidavit, only then will the court consider the petitions”.
“Those 10 members have been denotified,” argued Zafar, “once their membership is reinstated, then we can consider the return to the parliament”.
Commenting on the 10 accepted resignations the CJ also said that “the members themselves accept that the resignations were genuine” and therefore deemed the issue pointless. However, he insisted that “the members whose resignations have not been accepted should go to the parliament”.
Upon the PTI lawyer’s request to dismiss the 10 accepted resignations, the IHC CJ said that “the parliament has already been disrespected enough, don’t make a joke of democracy” and he reminded the PTI MNAs that they had been burdened by the responsibility to represent the will of the people that had elected them. “Return to parliament first,” the judge told the PTI lawyer, “and then you may bring this petition before the court again, we will hear it then.”
“But we have been pushed out,” argued Zafar to which the judge responded that he was referring to the other 113 members as he urged the party to prove “its good faith”.
“How can we sit with the Speaker if you do not suspend the notification,” pleaded the PTI lawyer. “This court will not facilitate your political dialogue,” said CJ Minallah as he granted the petitioners until tomorrow to produce their bona fides. “Go to the parliament, we will hear your petition,” the judge asserted, “this court respects political parties, they are elected representatives of the people”.
The court recessed for an hour upon the request of PTI counsel to consult with the petitioners. Upon the resumption of proceedings however, he reiterated the earlier stance saying that the PTI’s argument was that “unrelated persons” rather than the Speaker had decided on the resignations.
The court however refrained Zafar from arguing this point asking if he thought “what Qasim Suri did was his own decision”. He furthered that “parliament is the supreme institution, if someone does not accept that then why should we hear their petition?”
“The court is not saying anything to you about that,” CJ Minallah responded, but then inquired, if “the petitioners say that they respect the party’s policy, then why do they wish to return?” PTI’s lawyer informed the court that “perhaps the party may decide later that it is to return to the assemblies, maybe they wish to return and oppose a specific bill, but in that case 11 of our members will not be able to return”.
Appearing unimpressed by the argument CJ Minallah remarked that “on the one hand you say that you are not going against the party policy and on the other you are arguing this”.
“The court grants you five days,” said CJ Minallah, “you prove [your case] with your conduct”. However, the PTI lawyer requested the court to suspend the election commission’s notification for the accepted resignations. The court adjourned the case indefinitely without passing any orders.
