Daily Times

While the Constitution of Pakistan — the supreme legal document of the land — guarantees powers to the Speaker of the National Assembly to rule on any question affecting the membership of the National Assembly of any member, the same powers exercised by Dr Fehmida Mirza in Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s case, the opposition apparently disagrees. Not having learnt a lesson from fruitless pursuits such as the memo case or the attempt to launch an agitation against the government — both major failures — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz is running full tilt towards another debacle. Of course, this time it is not alone as the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf has joined the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz in filing petitions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the decision of the National Assembly Speaker. One wonders if the petitions to be filed are actually going to hold much substance or whether this is just another exercise in political maneouvring. The constitution safeguards the Speaker’s prerogative under Article 69 to exercise his/her powers in deciding whether a member of parliament has earned disqualification, even in the event of a conviction from a court. The Supreme Court convicted Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on April 26 in a contempt case for not complying with its repeated orders with regard to writing a letter to the Swiss authorities requesting them to reopen the graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari. This case widened the fissures even further in the relationship between the judiciary and the executive — two of the premier institutions of the state — relations that have been strained since December 16, 2009 over the NRO case. The two institutions have locked horns on several occasions, over different issues. The contempt case against the prime minister gave the opposition parties an opportunity to play politics and run an anti-prime minister campaign in different circles with full vigour. They hailed the Supreme Court for convicting the prime minister. However, the Speaker of the National Assembly used her authority and prerogative to rule that the verdict of the Supreme Court convicting and sentencing the prime minister for contempt till the rising of the court had not attracted the disqualification of the prime minister as a member of parliament. She therefore rejected sending a reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan to initiate any further actions in this regard. The ruling was not novel to the politicians and people of Pakistan as some other elected members have also benefited from Article 69 of the constitution before Prime Minister Gilani. Veteran politician Makhdoom Javed Hashmi’s name immediately comes to mind in this regard.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s petition calls the Speaker’s May 24 ruling ‘arbitrary, capricious and illegal’. Its leader Khawaja Asif said, “The act of a disqualified person to insist on continuing as the prime minister of the country is a defiance and a subversion of the constitution, culpable under Article 6.” The constitution of Pakistan clearly endorses such powers of the Speaker so no such question on the legality of her ruling arises in the first place. Secondly, the courts are constitutionally barred from adjudicating on parliament’s proceedings or decisions. It would be logical to expect that the Supreme Court therefore would not entertain the petitions of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf. However, if it admits them for hearing, another clash would erupt, this time not only between the judiciary and the executive but also involving parliament, an elected constitutional body whose supremacy is absolute and indisputable. Being head of parliament, the Speaker’s decision ought to be respected and accepted by all and sundry. *