The National Assembly met unusually on Sunday, to vote on the motion of no-confidence in the Prime Minister. Not only were opposition members not stopped on the way, as threatened, but Treasury members were also present, with the conspicuous absence of the PM himself. The motion was put for voting, but the Law Minister intervened and asked that the motion be dismissed because it had been brought as a result of an attempt by a foreign power. This aspect was not raised at the time that the motion was admitted some days ago, for voting there was no hearing of the Opposition, and the Deputy Speaker, who was presiding, ruled that the motion was disposed of as not valid, and then read out the prorogation order signed by the Speaker. The Prime Minister, who had not been able to dissolve the House while the motion was pending, then proceeded to announce the dissolution, though announcing no date for the poll. The President asked him to continue in office until a successor, a caretaker PM, entered upon his office. There was no sign of the constitutionally mandated consultative process with the Leader of the Opposition, that would yield a caretaker PM.
The dissolution hinges on the disposal of the no-confidence vote. The Opposition proceeded to hold its own session of the National Assembly, and in the absence of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, got Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, one of the session’s panel of chairmen, to preside. That would be usual, but under the present circumstances, implies taking the view that the Speaker’s prorogation was illegal. True, there had been no vote on the motion, which was a prerequisite to prorogation, and there is the further question of whether the prorogation could be ordered by a Speaker under notice of no-confidence, as Speaker Asad Qaisar had been since the morning. The vote was carried out, and succeeded, as 193 members voted in its favour. The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of these events, just before it was petitioned by the opposition. The Chief Justice of Pakistan has constituted a five-member bench which will hear the case even as it considers the earlier petition of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the federal government’s reference on the anti-floorcrossing clause. The Supreme Court has constituted a five-member bench to hear the case, and notices have been issued to all concerned, which indicates that the government has achieved at least getting the matter thrown into court, where it may use lawyerly devices to prolong proceedings, and thus prolong the government’s survival. While the Supreme Court may decide, as the government’s legal eagles can be heard arguing, that the courts cannot interfere in parliamentary proceedings, it is possible that the Supreme Court may find itself obliged to intervene, as the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and Deputy Speaker have been accused of subverting the Constitution. What is the remedy for proceedings conducted unconstitutionally?
That is the point at which the judiciary becomes involved. Otherwise, a judicial refusal to examine parliamentary proceedings means that the PM need only have the Speaker on his side, and he would no longer be answerable to the National Assembly, because it would have no means of removing him. While judicial jurisdiction has been ousted from parliamentary proceedings to prevent every ruling on a point of order being referred to the courts, and thus creating hold-ups in proceedings, any clear violation of the Constitution cannot but attract judicial notice.
One of problems has been that events in Punjab have become a sideshow, though they deserve more attention. The dismissal of Punjab Governor Muhammad Sarawar, and the postponement of the vote in the election of the CM on Sunday morning, and its postponement to Tueday, would have riveted attention on Lahore, had events in Islamabad not been so absorbing. At the moment, it may suit Mr Khan to hold national elections without having the PTI governments in KP or Punjab dissolved.
However, it would seem to provide him too much of an advantage not to be resisted. Mr Khan might find that any celebrations are premature. The political crisis so far has caused the national economy direct losses, in terms of rupee depreciation and stock market declines. The judiciary is now saddled with the can of worms, and it must decide the matter swiftly, because of the economic losses. The consequences of dragging foreign relations into domestic politics may not be reversible, and is a real loss of Sunday’s proceedings, though perhaps not the worst.
