Pakistan is in a state of political chaos as the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan was dismissed abruptly on Sunday. The move came after National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri termed it “unconstitutional”, saying that it was backed by “foreign powers”.
Suri then quickly disallowed voting on the no-confidence motion and adjourned the session. Later, on PM Khan’s advice, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly, with the premier asking the nation to get ready for fresh polls.
After the nation was left in shock, there was much talk about the “unconstitutional trump card” used by PM Khan.What everyone wants to know is: did Khan subvert the constitution of Pakistan?
Lawyer Salaar Khan tweeted a brief comprehension of the constitutional premise of what happened on Sunday, April 3, which went viral on Twitter.
“Instead of allowing the vote to proceed against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the resolution. After this, the President was able to dissolve the National Assembly on the PM’s advice,” tweeted Salaar.
“Under Article 58 of the Constitution, the President may dissolve the National Assembly on the PM’s advice. However, a PM against whom a vote of no confidence ‘has not been voted upon’ cannot ask the President to dissolve the house,” wrote Salaar.
“To get around this, the Deputy Speaker first ‘dismissed’ the no-confidence resolution submitted against the PM. He did this on the basis of a personal interpretation of Article 5, which provides for loyalty to the state.”
“The rather feeble argument here was that because the letter that Pakistan had received from the US suggested a regime change would improve relations, the vote of the no-confidence motion, itself, was against anti-state,” said the lawyer.
“The irony, of course, is that Article 5 also provides for obedience to the Constitution – which was arguably violated in the process of the dismissal of the no-confidence motion.”
“Procedurally, a ‘motion’ for no-confidence is first moved and, if leave is granted, it becomes a ‘resolution’. Under the Rules of Business in the National Assembly, there is no provision that actually allows a Speaker or Deputy Speaker to dismiss a resolution.”
“In fact, the role of the Speaker is very clearly defined in Schedule 2 of the Rules of Business in the NA, and is essentially limited, in a VoNC, to announcing the result.”
“And so, because the Speaker can’t dismiss a resolution for a VoNC, there is still a VoNC that has not been ‘voted upon’ by the Prime Minister. Consequently, the PM could not have advised that the assembly be dissolved under Article 58.”
“In fact, in doing so, it may even be argued that he not only violated Article 5, by not obeying the Constitution but also subverted the Constitution under Article 6. It is, however, important to note that Article 6 is often used rather flippantly in common parlance.”
“Finally, is the question of what the SC may do in all of this. One provision of the Constitution that has been mentioned a lot is Article 69, which bars courts from interfering in certain Parliamentary proceedings.”
“However, the SC has laid out exceptions to this bar. Courts can interfere where there is not an ‘irregularity’ but a ‘patent illegality’, where there is clear mala fide, or where the matter in question affects the composition of the house, itself (such as in Farzand Ali).”
“But while the SC may well find that it can interfere, how far it will go is another question. In theory, the SC could find the dissolution to be without legal effect and even order voting to resume on the VoNC. But given recent precedent, that may be a long shot.”
The Supreme Court of Pakistan took suo moto notice of the Assembly proceedings on Sunday, April 3, and restrained the state institutions as well as the political parties from taking any unconstitutional acts and exploiting the situation.
