8.2 C
New York
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
HomeWorldPakistan'Boycott': Mazari and PPP lawyers told SC they won't get involved in...

‘Boycott’: Mazari and PPP lawyers told SC they won’t get involved in proceedings on Punjab CM elections – Pakistan

counsel for Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly Dost Mohammad Mazari Irfan Qadeer briefed the Supreme Court on On a Tuesday when his client ordered him to no longer participate in proceedings, and he instead file a petition for review of Courts decision do not constitute full bench.

PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek also declined participate in trial.

development comes as the supreme court resumed hearings on a petition by PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi challenging the deputy speaker’s decision. in recent re-elections for chief Punjab minister which led to the victory of Hamza Shehbaz.

The hearing began shortly after 11:30. Decree coalition previously said it would boycott proceedings in protest. Lawyers for both sides arrived in court earlier.


Events so far

  • The UK rejected the government’s request for full court
  • Ruling alliance announces boycott of proceedings
  • Mazari and PPP lawyers tell court they will not participate in proceedings
  • Deputy speaker to file review petition against decision do not constitute full bench
  • CJP says bench not given even one legal argument” for full bench formation; asks the lawyers to rethink boycott’ decision
  • Hearing adjourned to 2:30 p.m.

Trinomial bench as part of the Chief Judge of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Judges Ijazul Ahsan and Judge Muneeb Akhtar listen to a petition challenging Mazari’s decision, which was instrumental in Hamza Shehbaz’s victory.

During the elections, Mazari decided against counting votes of 10 PML-Q MPs who were elected in favor of Elahi, referring to a letter written party President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in what he instructed them vote for Hamza instead.

“The court did not convince for full bench’

Main justice noted that bench was not provided with even one legal argument in service of component full bench during yesterday’s hearing. “You asked for time, so the hearing was adjourned,” he told Naek.

“Stay in court and observe the process. There is no answer to the legal question yet,” he said. added.

Judge Bandial said the question was, party head could issue order to the parliamentarian party. “According to the law, Parliament party does decision [who to vote for]. party head can send a link in case of deviation from party policy.

“BUT full-court bench cannot be formed for this question.”

Main justice the lawyers said for all parties were given time to present their arguments. Supreme Court dissolves provisional cabinet in 1988, continued by CJP, adding that the executive director is head of cabinet.

“We want wrap up cause of chief of Punjab minister as soon as possible. We were not convinced [constitute] a full bench”.

He repeated that full bench could not form second a week of September and said that now the court will hear the arguments on merit of the business. “There’s a crisis in province because of this case. Further delay tactics won’t tolerate in this case,” he warned.

Judge Bandial said the 21st amendment was made up during the hearing. “[Then] justice Azmat Said remarked regarding the 18th Amendment that vote will be thrown in conformity with in party head instructions”.

However, he noted that the present case was different and the court need help.

He also noted that Article 63-A did not include the question of who would give instructions. “At that time of interpretation, the question was only about the consequences of desertion”.

CJP went on that if someone misunderstood the Constitution, the interpretation could be overturned.

“Misinterpreting the Constitution means that the Constitution has been misunderstood,” he said, adding that out of 17 judges, eight gave their opinion on 21st Amendment.

But that’s not the opinion of the majority. decision because most of nine judges required,” Main justice remarked by adding that back then, bench consisting of 17 judges.

Separately, CJP reiterated that he wanted blow up case soon because of questions of management and crisis in Punjab.

Main justice the question of whether the Supreme Court can be bound decision of eight of its 17 judges. “Majority of in full-court bench disagree with in party head gives instructions, he said.

“Those who boycotted court sessions have shown enough grace to sit and watch them,” he said.

18th amendment

He then assigned Parvez Elahi’s lawyer Ali Zafar to assist the court. in legal issues.

The lawyer said that yesterday the court heard detailed arguments. “It’s not a matter of interpretation. of Article 63-A.

“The court has already interpreted it before. This is about directions. of in party headZafar said.

He pointed out that under the 18th amendment party head received power take measures against dissident members.

Elahi counselarguments

Zafar said that in decision regarding the 21st Amendment, then Judge Javad Khawaja declared Section 63-A against Constitution. “He was of the view that the law forbids members to vote freely.

But he didn’t include reason of his opinion in sentence,” he recalled, adding that he did not agree with judge’s opinion.

parliamentary party and party the leader was “two different things” counsel claimed.

Judge Ahsan noted that in accordance with the Constitution party head guaranteed implementation of parliamentary partyx decision.

Meanwhile, Judge Bandial stated that the parliamentary party didn’t take decision on your own. “Political party” decision reported to the parliament party which in turn takes its toll decision keeping it in view”.

He then asked Zafar, “What does the law say? By whose direction should in vote to be abandoned?”

The lawyer replied that the Constitution contains instructions regarding vote were issued by parliament party.

Main justice then asked if the parliamentary party was separated from party head.

Zafar replied that during his tenure of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf passed a law head of parliamentary party, instead of in party main. “But that law was repealed by the 18th Amendment,” he said.

In the meantime, Judge Akhtar asked for a ruling of in party main. “It party boss only head of political party?

Judge Ahsan also asked: “Where was the word ‘parliamentary leader’ used?”

Zafar said that in 2002, parliamentary party was mentioned in Law on political parties.

Judge Ahsan stated that the word “parliamentary leader” instead of parliamentary party was just mistake.

Meanwhile, additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said he would assist the court. in conformity with Article 27 of Constitution.

PTI Arguments

Subsequently PTI counsel Imtiaz Siddiqi began his arguments.

Main justice recalled that Chaudhry’s lawyer Shujaat Hussein told the court that the letter had been sent to everyone party MPA with clear instructions.

Siddiqui replied that way the vote was taken for re-elections were in front of court. federal government used all my resources and all party chiefs were present in Lahore at the time, he claimed.

party boss’s letter should arrive in the time he indicated out.

Main justice said that the court will reach its decision in better way”If advice for all parties provided assistance bench and asked those who I decided boycott proceedings – lawyers for Mazari and SPT – to rethink their decision.

After that, the court session was postponed to 14:30.

Mazar to file review petition

talking to media faces outside court, Irfan Kadir, the deputy speaker’s lawyer, said his client had decided against participation in business further.

“There has been an unprecedented boycott across the country against higher court judgment [on the full court bench]”, – he told reporters. “My client decided to use the constitutional right and [file a] plea for a review of yesterday’s decision”.

Kadir said he hoped that review the petition will fixed before full-court bench or one separate from the trinomial bench. “And I sure case will be heard on grounds of price.”

Referring to the case of Judge Qazi Faez Isa, he said that nine members bench was created to hear this question of one judge. “Why is the tripartite bench hearing a case that concerns the whole country?”

The Supreme Court, he added had no right to intervene in affairs of parliament. “It should rather strengthen and stabilize it, and vice versa.

Speaking at a press conference later in This was stated by the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Punjab, Ataullah Tarar. on in governments demand for a full court bench.

He stated that the party’s lawyers did not participate in today’s court hearing, adding that full court bench will only increase the respect of SC. “I believe that the law should to be equal for everything,” he said, adding that justice cannot serve without a constitution of a full-court bench.

During the hearing on On Saturday, the court allowed Hamza… who was re-elected on July 22 – to remain “trusted” boss minister until July 25th.

Read: Key takeaways from the SC order on Elahi plea on Punjab CM elections

Yesterday, government requested a constitution of a full bench.

plea was, however, rejected because the CJP ruled that full judgment will mean a hearing of the case will not be reopened until September due to lack of of judges among current vacation.

“But we can’t allow such a state of affairs pull and tighten,” Judge Bandial said.

Register your protest later against UK decision ruling alliance in night conference announced what will it be boycott trial.

Elections

During the elections on On Friday, Mazari rejected all 10 votes cast PML-Q on under the pretext that they violated the order of them party Chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, referring to a letter he received from the patriarch saying that he had asked for his party legislators back Hamza.

After counting the votes polled, deputy speaker announced that Elahi took 186 votes and Hamza could get 179 votes. However, he refrained from declaring Elahi the leader minister.

Instead, he pointed out that party Chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain instructed PML-Q members to vote for Hamza instead of Elahi had more influence.

Then vice speaker announced what about hamza won elections of chief ministersince 10 is subtracted votes reduced the number of Elahi reached 176, but Hamza remained on Top with 179.

Elahi plea

In his motion, Elahi asked the court to uphold the Vice Speaker’s decision. leading to the re-election of Hamza as a “fake and false”.

“Hamza Shehbaz can be graciously declared disqualified head of the Punjab. minister/ member of provincial assembly,” the petition reads.

He asked the court to announce the deputy speaker decision give up votes of 10 MPs PML-Q on grounds of Article 63-A of the Constitution as “unconstitutional”.

Instead, the petition says, the court could declare Elahi a “legitimately returned candidate” and allow the PML-Q leader to be sworn in as head of the Punjab. minister.

The petition also stated that Hamza should to refrain from taking an oath as a superior minister. It is pertinent to mention that Hamza already was sworn in of office Governor of Punjab Baligur Rehman formerly on Friday.


More follow.

Follow World Weekly News on

Derrick Santistevan
Derrick Santistevan
Derrick is the Researcher at World Weekly News. He tries to find the latest things going around in our world and share it with our readers.

Leave a Reply

Must Read