PHC seeks replies in oath challenge
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the judges raised serious constitutional questions and expressed skepticism over the maintainability of the petitions, especially that of the Chief Minister. Justice Ejaz Anwar remarked that the matter primarily concerns the Speaker of the Assembly and not the Chief Minister, stating, "The Speaker is the affected party here. The Chief Minister is not an aggrieved person." Justice Faheem Wali also questioned Gandapur's legal standing, asking, "In what capacity has the Chief Minister filed this petition? He already fulfilled his role."
The hearing saw the presence of K-P Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, Speaker's counsel Waqar Khan, and other legal representatives. Justice Ejaz Anwar, while addressing the Advocate General, noted that had the oath not been administered, the members would not have been able to vote in the Senate elections. "The fact that they voted shows the oath was essential," he observed.
Speaker Swati and CM Gandapur, through their respective counsels, contended that the oath-taking held at Governor House was unconstitutional. They argued that Article 65 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that members must take oath within the Assembly, and that the Speaker had not refused to administer the oath - the session was simply adjourned due to a lack of quorum.
The petitions further claim that Article 255(2), which allows for alternative oath-taking arrangements in case of impossibility, was misapplied. "There was no refusal from the Speaker or the Chief Minister. A session had already been convened. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Article 255(2) were not met," the petitioners argued. They maintained that the Chief Justice's administrative directive instructing the Governor to administer the oath was a constitutional overreach.
The oath-taking ceremony, held at the Governor House on a Sunday, followed a request made to the Chief Justice by newly elected members on reserved seats. In their letter, they expressed concerns over being denied the opportunity to vote in the upcoming Senate elections. Acting on this letter, the Registrar of the High Court issued an official directive, authorizing the Governor to administer the oath under Article 255(2)".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
17 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ECP also de-seats PTI's MNA from Chitral
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Tuesday disqualified PTI lawmaker Abdul Latif Chitrali and issued a notification declaring his seat vacant in view of his conviction in a May 9 case. The disqualification petitions against Chitrali were heard by a five-member bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikander Sultan Raja. Chitrali's lawyer appeared before the commission. During the hearing, the ECP's director general of law stated that the commission is not required to hear petitions against convicted individuals. The CEC asked if it meant that there was no need to hear references or petitions against such individuals. "Then the commission's role is only to act upon received court decisions?" he asked. Chitrali's lawyer contended that the ECP does not receive complaints directly and only the National Assembly speaker can notify it regarding disqualification after hearing the concerned party within the first 30 days. He said the notices they received also did not cite any specific constitutional article. He argued that disqualification is not automatic upon conviction, and the commission must examine whether the offense falls under Articles 63(g) or 63(h) of the Constitution. The ECP member from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa noted that the Constitution clearly states that a person sentenced to more than two years is ineligible to remain a lawmaker. The ECP Punjab member remarked that the Constitution empowers the ECP to decide on references sent by the NA speaker. During the hearing, Chitrali's lawyer referred to the PTI founder's disqualification case and mentioned CEC Sikandar Sultan Raja in that context, prompting laughter in the courtroom. Later, the ECP reserved its decision and announced it would issue a verdict by evening. Subsequently, the ECP rejected Chitrali's petition and declared the NA-1 Chitral seat vacant. An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad on May 30 sentenced Member of the National Assembly (MNA) Abdul Latif Chitrali to 10-years in prison for attacking a police station during the violent riots that broke out across the country after May 9, 2023 arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. MNA Abdul Latif Chitrali was elected from NA-1 Chitral with the support of the PTI in Feb 8 polls.
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
ECP out on a disqualification spree
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) appears to be increasingly under legal siege as a growing number of its lawmakers face disqualification on various charges, many arising from May 9-related cases. The wave of disqualifications has sparked concern among legal experts who argue the process may be circumventing constitutional procedures and eroding democratic norms. Though not unprecedented, the disqualifications are bypassing the route laid out in Article 225 of the Constitution, which states that no election of the national or provincial assembly can be challenged except through an election petition submitted before an election tribunal. Since the restoration of judges in March 2009, lawmakers have been unseated by the superior judiciary – particularly the Supreme Court under former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry – on grounds such as holding fake degrees and dual nationalities. Even former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was shown the door in a contempt case. During the tenure of former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, a string of PML-N lawmakers also faced disqualification. Notably, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Subsequently, PML-N leaders Nehal Hashmi, Talal Chaudhry and Daniyal Aziz were disqualified in contempt proceedings. Two PML-N senators were also de-seated for holding dual nationalities at the time of filing their nomination papers. Now, it is PTI's turn in the hot seat. So far, four PTI lawmakers – two MNAs, one senator, and one MPA – have been disqualified due to convictions related to the May 9 riots. PTI founder Imran Khan himself was convicted in three separate cases before the 2024 general election, effectively barring him from contesting the polls. Recently, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan expressed concern that up to 39 more lawmakers could face disqualification over similar charges in the coming months. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has also jumped into the fray. Acting on references sent by the National Assembly speaker, it has begun the process of unseating PTI MNAs. Most recently, PTI's Jamshed Dasti was disqualified by the ECP for failing to disclose assets in his nomination papers. The commission is now reviewing the eligibility of the leader of the opposition in the NA, Omar Ayub. During the tenure of former chief justice Qazi Faez Isa, the ECP was permitted to conduct recounts in three constituencies, leading to the de-seating of two PTI lawmakers. 'Premature move' Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana criticised the ECP's move as premature. "The most appropriate interpretation of Article 63(1)(g) is that the election commission cannot do it on its own after a member has taken the oath of office." He argued that only upon a reference from the speaker can such a member be disqualified, and that too after the conviction is upheld by the highest court. "Indira Gandhi was disqualified by the court, but on appeal, the sentence was suspended by the Indian Supreme Court in 1975, and she continued to serve as both a member and prime minister," he pointed out. Waqar Rana posed a question: if, on appeal, the conviction is set aside, then how can you disqualify a person? The other question is: how has the ECP assumed that convictions will be maintained in appeal? "It is tragic that ECP continues to undermine the democratic process," he added. Another lawyer noted that Article 225 of the Constitution has become redundant, adding that only election tribunals have jurisdiction to take up such matters. Earlier, parliamentarians belonging to the PPP and PML-N were being sent home through superior courts by the exercise of quo warranto jurisdiction. Now, the same is being done with PTI lawmakers by the ECP, without conducting a trial. Likewise, PTI lawyer Abuzar Salman Niazi said that convictions of several PTI lawmakers by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha, are judgments delivered by a court of first instance and have not yet attained finality. It is settled law that an appeal constitutes a continuation of the trial and that the judgment of a trial court does not become final until all appellate remedies are exhausted. In Federation of Pakistan v. Gul Hameed Khan (PLD 1975 SC 254), the Supreme Court held that "the appellate process is integral to the administration of justice and a judgment in a trial court remains provisional until the conclusion of appeals". "Therefore, any action taken against the PTI lawmakers prior to the disposal of their appeals would be premature and legally unsustainable." Niazi said that the ECP's notification of disqualification, issued prior to final adjudication, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and due process enshrined under Article 10A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the ECP's failure to provide the lawmakers an opportunity to hear before issuing the disqualification notifications is a grave breach of procedural fairness. "Article 10A guarantees the right to a fair trial, and the principle of audi alteram partem — that no person shall be condemned unheard — is a cornerstone of administrative and judicial proceedings. In Asad Ali Khan v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1986 SC 383), the Court emphasised that "the right to be heard is an essential part of the principle of natural justice and must be observed before any adverse order is passed." "The denial of such hearing rights renders the ECP's action not only unlawful but unconstitutional. Moreover, these convictions do not fall within the ambit of Article 63 of the Constitution; therefore, the procedure followed by the ECP reflects a manifest misreading and misapplication of the law." Lastly, he added, the ECP's selective enforcement of judicial decisions raises serious concerns about its impartiality and commitment to the rule of law. While the ECP rapidly acted to implement the trial court's decision against PTI lawmakers, it has failed to enforce the binding judgment of the Supreme Court's largest bench regarding reserved seats for over a year. He argued that such selective and inconsistent conduct undermines public confidence in the institution and violates the principle of equality before law as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. "As held in Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1272), "the sanctity of constitutional bodies depends on their neutrality, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law." The current conduct of the ECP falls short of these constitutional expectations and requires immediate rectification," he added. A three-judge bench of the Lahore High Court will take up the Dasti disqualification case today (Wednesday). Meanwhile, May 9-related trials have accelerated following a Supreme Court directive mandating the conclusion of all such proceedings within four months. Legal observers argue that the courts have often allowed powerful circles to shape political outcomes by fast-tracking trials against selected parties — first the PML-N during the Panama Papers case, and now the PTI in May 9 cases. Once, the apex court ordered expedited NAB proceedings against the Sharif family; now the same court, under CJP Yahya Afridi, has directed ATCs to wrap up May 9 trials within a similar tight deadline.
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Omar urges CJ to ensure 'fair May 9 trials'
Leader of Opposition Omar Ayub Khan has written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, appealing to him to intervene to ensure fair trial of people adjudicated in anti-terrorism courts (ATCs) for their alleged roles in rioting after May 9, 2023 arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. In the four-page "appeal", the opposition leader, who belongs to the PTI, has highlighted the alleged irregularities happening during the May 9 trials. The ATCs are bound by the Supreme Court to conclude all these May 9 case proceedings by the first week of August. According to Omar, the integrity of Pakistan's judicial process is under grave threat as these trials, which are supposed to exemplify justice, have instead become a means of political persecution. "The ATCs in Lahore, Faisalabad, Sargodha, and other cities are hearing cases related to May 9 with a speed and manner that shock the conscience of any impartial observer. "Hearings commence early morning and extend late into the night; in fact, it is reliably reported that in some cases proceedings continue until 2:00 am to 3:00 am. "This is justice crushed and justice buried under the weight of exhaustion, coercion, and haste," he added. He stated that such a schedule was unprecedented in the annals of Pakistani jurisprudence as it disregarded the most basic principles of a fair trial, including the accused's right to a meaningful opportunity to prepare and present a defense, and the judiciary's solemn obligation to conduct trials with dignity, transparency, and impartiality. He also referred to the motto of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that justice must not only be done, it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. He regretted that during the May 9 trials, this cardinal principle has been systematically violated. Omar claimed that the leadership, workers, and supporters of the PTI were wrongfully implicated through a process that appeared mala fide and politically motivated. Police reports and prosecutions lack credible evidence and are riddled with procedural irregularities, he added. He also narrated numerous instances of prosecutorial overreach and police misconduct, including the fabrication of FIRs, coercive interrogation tactics, and selective registration of cases against opposition figuresall undermining the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system. Referring to the right to counsel of choice, he said a fundamental right enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution has been trampled. He said the ATCs frequently deny adjournments and, in many cases, threaten or proceed to appoint state counsels without the consent of the accused. "This practice not only breaches constitutional guarantees but also violates internationally recognized fair trial standards., including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), to which Pakistan is a party," he wrote. "If these trials are allowed to continue under current conditionshurried, secretive, and politically charged, the damage to Pakistan's judicial reputation and the people's trust will be irrevocable."
