Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Fawad Chaudhry criticised the Supreme Court’s detailed judgement given yesterday in a suo motu case on the ruling by former National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri under Article 5 of the Constitution.
“The people should be given the right to make decisions. Judges and generals can’t change their policies every day. They can’t take decisions behind closed doors.”
Fawad said that Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial has the sealed cipher in his office. “Senior judges should ask the CJP why it was not shown to them,” said Fawad.
He further claimed that a letter from President Alvi is also with the Supreme Court suggesting the formation of a commission to investigate the matter. However, the court had not responded to Alvi’s letter.
“Rather than forming a commission to properly investigate the matter, the Supreme Court has given its verdict without even reading the material that was given to it. Moreover, the timing of the ruling is self-explanatory.”
The PTI leader asked if the Supreme Court could issue the detailed judgement after three months, why did it not delay it a bit longer. He alleged that it was purposefully done in the wake of the upcoming by-elections in Punjab.
Moreover, the PTI leader claimed that people are aware of why the SC “did not want to investigate the cipher”. Chaudhry was of the view that the top court “should read the cipher before penning the judgment”.
He challenged the decision saying that when PTI comes back into power, it will quash the order through Parliament.
Commenting on Mazhar Alam Miankhel’s additional note which said “if we begin to pursue cases under article 6, we will find there are more people to hang than there are nooses”.
If I get permission, will get Imran Khan arrested: Rana Sanuallah
Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said that President Dr Arif Alvi should resign and that if he gets permission from the cabinet to file a case against Imran Khan, he [Khan] will be arrested.
Rana Sanaullah said that the matter of reference against former Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan, President Alvi, former Deputy Speaker Suri will be considered in the cabinet tomorrow. Sanaullah said that Khan “can go to any level for his personal interests”.
He claimed that PTI is still receiving salaries from the National Assembly and they are still using government vehicles. He urged that they should be de-seated and disqualified.
Replying to a question, Rana Sanaullah said that Sheikh Rasheed was supposed to be arrested during the long march but he could not be found as he was in hiding.
PM Shehbaz’s reaction
Following the judgement, Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif said that everyone should read the judgement. In a tweet, the preimer said, “Honourable Supreme Court’s detailed judgement on Vote of No Confidence exposes the lies and propaganda indulged in by Imran Khan and Co. utterly shameful how IK tried to undermine the Constitution and manufactured the lie of regime change.”
PTI failed to produce any evidence to support claim of foreign conspiracy: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court issued a detailed judgement on Wednesday (July 13) in a suo motu case on the ruling by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly under Article 5 of the Constitution.
The court has said that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) failed to “produce any evidence” before the court to support their claim of interference by a foreign force in the ousting of former Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan through a no-confidence motion.
In the judgement, the apex court revealed that the cipher was not even shown to it although its contents “were partially disclosed in the detailed reasons issued in support of the deputy speaker’s ruling”.
On April 7, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court had declared Qasim Suri’s ruling on the dismissal of no-confidence motion against Imran Khan as unconstitutional and illegal. The bench unanimously ruled that President Dr Arif Alvi’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly is “illegal” and restored Imran Khan as Prime Minister as well as his cabinet ministers to face the no-confidence motion on April 9.
No evidence
The Supreme Court said that it rejected PTI’s plea to take suo motu action over the ‘breach of sovereignty’ allegation, citing “no precedence, absence of evidence and lack of jurisdiction”.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the action by the deputy speaker triggered a chain of events.
Moreover, the SC noted that neither the Constitution nor the NA procedure rules have given the power to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to dismiss a no-trust resolution “for being inadmissible or non-maintainable”.
The judgement said, “It was a unilateral decision taken by the Deputy Speaker at the behest of the Law Minister.”
High treason for President Alvi, Khan and others?
Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel stressed in his additional note that there must be consequences for President Alvi, ex-PM Imran, former Speaker Asad Qaiser, former Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and former Law Minister Fawad Chaudhry because they prevented the elected representatives of the people “from voting on the resolution” and therefore it was a “blatant transgression of the Constitution”.
“Whether the stated acts attract Article 6 of the Constitution is also left open to be determined by the Parliamentarians as to whether they leave open the doors for such unconstitutional acts or take suitable measures to stop such like mess in future,” Justice Miankhel suggested.
Article 6 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan states, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”
Suri was biased
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed in his additional note that the action of the Deputy Speaker was biased. He said that if at the time it was permitted to hold fresh elections, it would amount to giving license to an authority to misuse the extraordinary power of the doctrine of necessity.
