National Assembly Speaker has no powers to conduct or supervise the meetings of the standing committees.
Under Article 66 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, privileges of the members of the parliament are laid down. The article clearly states that there shall be freedom of speech in the parliament, and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him.
Freedom of speech of a parliamentarian cannot, therefore, be curtailed within the parliament. To ensure this, the parliament itself is given the power to lay down its rules of procedures. This provision for freedom of expression also applies to committees of the parliament.
This article embodies within itself the spirit of parliamentary privileges and immunities. In constitutional democracies, the role of the legislature is to keep a check on the executive branch. Therefore, it cannot be left to the volition of the executive branch to detain members of the parliament so as to stifle and curtail their rights of the audience in the parliament.
Following the constitutional model, the National Assembly brought into force Rule 108 of the “Rules Of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly,” which states, “The Speaker or Chairman of a Committee may summon a member in custody on the charge of a nonbailable offence to attend a sitting or sittings of the Assembly or meeting of a Committee of which he is a member, if he considers his presence necessary.”
It was, thus, surprising when the government halted the issuance of production orders for MNAs Asif Ali Zardari and Khawaja Saad Rafique; barring them from attending the National Assembly and standing committee meetings since they were in the custody. This happened when the Standing Committee on Water Resources Chairman Yousuf Talpur signed production orders for both leaders to attend the sessions on July 10 and July 11, according to the rules. Of course, this was not a defendable position and it was clear that once the chairman had issued a production order, it had to be given effect. So, the speaker of the National Assembly malafidely, and on the feeble grounds of austerity, passed an order banning meetings of all the standing committee of the National Assembly convened without the House being in the session.
During his budget speech, Prime Minister Imran Khan had objected to the very concept of production orders. Clearly, the actions of the speaker reeked of the same indefensible agenda; shattering the spirit of the constitutional scheme of privileges of parliamentarians.
This article embodies within itself the spirit of parliamentary privileges and immunities. In constitutional democracies, the role of the legislature is to keep a check on the executive branch
The result of the speaker’s claimed austerity drive was the cancellation of four meetings to be held on the same day even when the members of the committee were already in the capital city and the agenda for the meetings of the committee was already set.
It is beyond any understanding as to how the actions of the speaker resulted in saving costs. The speaker himself was not in the country when he passed the order and one need not think too much to come to the conclusion that the move of the speaker had clear political motives. In fact, the speaker has no powers to conduct or supervise the meetings of the standing committees. Thus, he acted in a manner ultra vires, both to the constitution and the rules of the procedure.
The upshot of the above is that due to the actions of the speaker, the parliament would eventually suffer a paralysis because of two reasons. Firstly, the impartiality of the speaker is currently under question.
Previously, the speaker had acted in a way that violated constitutional conventions by not issuing production orders for two MNAs from Waziristan in the most important session of the year: the budget session.
The political impartiality of the speaker is the chief eligibility for the job. Once elected, a speaker has to sever all ties with his party and treat all parliamentarians and all groups within the parliament fairly and justly. Otherwise, the legislative branch would come under the control of the executive branch and destroy the concept of the separation of powers within the country, resultantly, violating the constitution of the country.
The other reason remains that the standing committees are the “eyes, ears, hands and even brain of the parliament.”
If the standing committees of Parliament are not allowed to function, this is tantamount to shutting down the entire legislative branch itself. It would, therefore, not only paralyse Parliament but also the constitutional governance in the country.
As an increased number of members of the legislatures are detained by different law enforcement and investigative agencies, it is imperative that their rights of the audience in the parliament are not curtailed. It is not for the interest of those that have been elected but for the interests of those who elected them.
This is to ensure the executive branch does not silence the legislative wing and keeps being responsible to it as well as under its constitutional oversight. Unless and until a member of Parliament is formally, and after following the due process of the law, declared disqualified to be a member of Parliament, his/her right to speak in Parliament and its committees cannot be curtailed. Otherwise, it would turn the country into an autocratic and non-democratic entity. The only barrier to such rock bottom is a legislature that is not paralysed at the hands of its own presiding officer.
The writer is a barrister, who has an interest in Pakistani current affairs, economy, constitutional developments, foreign policy and international law