The Peshawar High Court is currently hearing petitions regarding the oath-taking of selected members of the assembly on special seats.
Justices Aasim Saeed and Shakeel Ahmed presided over the hearings where the Speaker’s lawyer, Ali Azim Afridi, clarified that the Speaker was not refusing to take the oath. Afridi explained that the Governor’s order had come through the opposition leader, bypassing proper channels.
When asked if anyone had challenged the Governor’s order, Afridi stated that no challenges had been made, but a letter was sent by the Provincial Assembly Secretary on March 21.
The court inquired about the possibility of the Governor requesting an assembly session. Afridi responded affirmatively, citing Article 109, which allows the Governor to make such a request. However, he noted that if the Governor did so, it would render the Chief Minister powerless.
Regarding the delay in oath-taking, the petitioner’s lawyer, Aamir Javaid Advocate, suggested that oaths could be taken in the chamber. He highlighted the deprivation of the petitioners’ rights for a month.
Despite being the majority in the assembly, the petitioner’s representatives were questioned about their delay in taking the oath. Afridi referenced the Peshawar High Court’s decision in the Baldia Kumar case.
The court explored whether an assembly session was necessary for oath-taking or if it could be done in the chamber. They emphasized the importance of upholding the constitution and following proper procedures.
The Speaker’s lawyer clarified that while the Speaker’s role was not to convene sessions, they were seeking directions against any misdirection. He emphasized that a session would only be summoned upon the request of one-fourth of the assembly members.
The Advocate General reiterated that according to Article 65, members were entitled to be sworn in upon election. However, the issue remained unresolved due to the delay in convening the assembly session.
The court expressed concern over the delay and emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures. The situation underscores the ongoing legal and procedural complexities surrounding the oath-taking process in the assembly.
