Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, the Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, has responded to mounting criticism over his decision to seek the disqualification of 26 opposition lawmakers in a manner that raises more questions than it answers.
The speaker faced a barrage of criticism following his attempt to disqualify PTI lawmakers for “unparliamentary conduct”. Suspending an MPA from the house is far from unprecedented, and in the loud and often ruly houses that represent the will of the people, there are even times when it is warranted. The real issue arose when Khan decided to escalate the matter, using it as a basis to approach the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) with the aim of permanently disqualifying the MPs.
because he is generally considered a reasonable figure not despite it.
The Speaker’s attempt to disqualify these legislators for protesting during the budget session has already drawn legal experts’ criticism, and rightly so. He has also been the subject of criticism by most journalists that cover Punjab politics and other political and parliamentary analysts. The criticism has come in part because Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan is considered a relatively reasonable figure; one who is willing to hear criticism and act on it as well. Many among the legal and journalistic fraternities though their criticism might mollify the Speaker’s anger. Instead it seems to have had the opposite effect.
The Speaker’s dismissive stance toward criticism and his decision to frame such protests as a constitutional violation rather than procedural disruptions are worrying. His remarks yesterday during a press conference make it clear that he is unwilling to take the criticism seriously. Instead of reflecting on the media and legal pushback to his overreaching actions, he chose to attack those who rightfully questioned the parameters of his authority.
His decision to seek disqualification was already seen as a drastic overstep. The fact that he has doubled down in the face of a tsunami of legal opinions has turned what should have been a conversation about procedural boundaries into an unnecessary standoff. Rather than accepting the critique as part of the democratic process—intended to correct perceived errors—he appears to be using it as a justification for doubling down on his extreme stance.
His defense of his actions may be a sign of defensiveness, not confidence in his decision-making. Legal experts have already pointed out that the Punjab Assembly’s rules allow only for temporary suspension, not permanent disqualification. Khan, however, seems intent on ignoring this fact, seemingly more concerned with defending his position than engaging with constructive criticism.
Democracy, for all its messiness, thrives on criticism and dissent. The Speaker’s job is to ensure that all voices in the assembly are heard and respected, including those from the opposition. The protests by opposition MPAs, while disruptive, are a symptom of political disagreement—nothing more, nothing less. To take the drastic step of disqualifying elected representatives for such conduct risks creating a chilling effect on democratic debate, setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
