With the Slogans of Nya Pakistan defining the code of conduct for how the Banana Republic of Pakistan shall be run, malicious attempts to steal the mandate of the people has become a routine. An utmost shock to the rational mind, the election to the custodian of the Upper House of the Parliament was explicit about the malintent of not only those that demanded the vanquish of Sanjrani but also the authoritative and responsible who’s words in itself were a blatant testament of the intention of those who voted for a democratic candidate.
While Rejecting Senator Gillani’s 7 votes, “In all of these 7 ballot papers, the stamp has been affixed to the name of the candidate”, said Mr. Muzaffar Ali Shah who was acting as a presiding officer for the purpose of the Election. It has been established by not one
but a plethora of judgments of the Apex Court that while questioning the validity of votes, the intent of the voter is of paramount importance. Could Mr. Shah have thought that voters who affixed the stamp to Senator Gillani’s name intended to vote otherwise?
Now that PDM is all set to challenge this ill gotten victory in the courts of law, seeking justice from the ultimate authority of equity, Government has placed all its bets on Article 69 of the Constitution in a desperate cry for maintaining the flamboyance of illegally
obtained power as has been a continuous practice of PTI Government and its allies thereby.
The application of and exceptions to article 69, are somewhat interesting. The immunity that parliamentary proceedings enjoy, derive its roots from the Bill of Rights 1689 however as Article 69(1) reads as; 69 (1). The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. The question remains if this election is covered under this provision or not?
For the purpose of immunity, ‘Proceedings’ includes everything said or done by a Member in the exercise of his functions as a Member. However, when Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Shah rejected the votes of Senator Gillani he was not exercising his functions as a Member but as a presiding officer and hence his illegal and unlawful rejection of 7 votes that were casted in favour of Mr. Gillani can be challenged in court.
Secondly, the bar of article 69 applies to irregularity of procedure. Irregularity of procedure means when mandatory procedure or conditions are overlooked in conducting business but this can only be in the case of parliamentary proceedings and
not for the election as it is not a business of the House but a means to elect the Leader of the House.
The question remains if the Courts are set to uphold the victory of the PDM Candidate who won this election fair and square. Whereas, the Government’s Candidate for the Deputy Chairman bagged 54 votes, Sanjrani who is known to be a blue eyed baby was
announced victorious despite getting only 48 votes. While 7 of Senator Gillani’s votes were rejected, the loud chants of “Rejected Rejected” from the selected treasury benches clarified the malintent on the part of the Government and the one appointed by
it to ensure a fair election. This act was nothing short of a visible attempt to weaken the columns of democracy.
Is today’s regime denying a former Prime Minister the fundamental rights and protections guaranteed to him by the Constitution which is a product of the same Parliament, sanctity of which is in question today. Is there a message for the world in it?
If any, the denial of equality before the law to a candidate for Senate Chairman would be another one in the list of the Government’s criminal acts to steal the people’s mandate.