Pakistan’s Election Commission (ECP) withheld a verdict on a referendum calling for the disqualification of 25 dissident MPAs from the PTI who voted for PML-N’s Hamza Shebaz in Punjab’s prime minister election on Tuesday.
Last month Hamza was elected Prime Minister of Punjab by defeating PTI-PML-Q co-candidate Chaudhry Parvez Elahi. Hamza won 197 votes, including 25 for PTI dissidents. Elahi did not win a vote as members of the PTI and PML-Q were expelled from the session.
After the declaration of the PTI, Elahi, who also served as the Chairman of the Punjab Parliament, sent a letter of opinion opposing the MPA against the ECP, urging the parliament in Hamza to vote to remove these defectors from the PTI. Favors contrary to party directives.
Dissident MPs include Raja Sagheer Ahmed, Malik Ghulam Rasool Sangha, Saeed Akbar Khan, Mohammad Ajmal, Abdul Aleem Khan, Nazir Ahmed Chohan, Mohammad Amin Zulqernain, Malik Nauman Langrial, Mohammad Salman, and Zawar Hussain Warraich. Zahra Batool, Mohammad Tahir, Aisha Nawaz, Sajida Yousaf, Haroon Imran Gill, Uzma Kardar, Malik Asad Ali, Ijaz Masih, Mohammad Sabtain Raza, Mohsin Atta Khan Khosa, Mian Khalid Mehmood, Mehar Mohammad Haymood,
The 25 MPAs mentioned in the bibliography were directed by the PTI, but according to Elahi’s references, they voted for Hamza. He added that he later issued a notice explaining his position to dissidents, but did not respond.
At today’s hearing, Khalid Ishaq, who represents the 10 MPAs, said lawmakers had not received an invitation or agenda for an April 1 parliamentary meeting. Also, on April 7, he said, only two lawmakers were notified of the call.
Dissident lawmakers did not even receive a disqualification declaration sent on April 18, he added.
He told the court that “the decision of the legislators is nowhere to be found.” “Fake documents were created after the meeting of the members of the National Assembly. [Former prime minister] Imran Khan mocks the members and ECP every day.
“[PTI’s counsel] Ali Zafar rightly said that floor crossings are cancerous. [but] Party dictatorship is also cancer.”
Ishaq argued that even if Imran’s party chairman’s instructions were “correct,” the MPA still couldn’t disqualify them.
He told lawmakers that he had been instructed to vote for Elahi and not be absent on voting day. He added that if Elahi boycotted the election, the MPA would be free to vote independently.
“The party chairman has nowhere given instructions not to vote for the opposing candidate in case of a boycott.”
Javed Malik, an attorney for dissident Aisha Nawaz, made similar claims.
“A no-confidence motion is pending for Ellahi. He [disqualification] Still see?”
Meanwhile, PTI attorney Ali Zafar argued that Congress had not given the order.
He said, “Article 63-A only mentions political parties, not specifically.” “It can be decided right now or by a majority of party members.”
Zafar argued that the assertion that the opposing MPA was not barred from voting for the opposing candidate was wrong.
“On April 1st, all MPAs were instructed regarding Elahi,” he said. “The Supreme Whip of the Punjab Parliament also wrote a letter to the MPA informing them. Imran Khan also tweeted about the decision that millions of people have read.”
He recalled that the Prime Minister’s Election could not be held on April 3rd. “On April 4, PTI Secretary General Assad Umar informed the members in a letter,” he added.
Zafar also added that he submitted a receipt for the courier service as evidence.
However, spokeswoman Salman Akram Raja, who represented Aleem Khan, objected that additional documents could not be submitted at this stage.
As a result, the ECP did not allow PTI to submit such receipts.
Meanwhile, Zafar said the PTI had given the PTI several chances to justify its action against the MPA, but none of them responded to the show cause notice.
“In their written responses, [submitted to the ECP]They acknowledged the defection,” he added, adding that the purpose of the ECP hearing is to remove shortcomings from the party chairman’s declaration.
As a result, ECP withheld the verdict after the takeover was completed. A decision will be announced today or tomorrow (Wednesday).
Denied reference to MNA
Last week, the ECP rejected PTI’s comments about 20 dissident MNAs, stating that they did not comply with Article 63-A.
The issue first came to light in March after several PTI lawmakers were found staying at the Sindh House in Islamabad ahead of a vote of no confidence in then Prime Minister Imran Khan.
They refuted claims that they had been offered money to succeed the opposition’s no-confidence measure, but said they would vote according to their “conscience”.
After that, PTI submitted a declaration requesting grounds for disqualification under Article 63-A of the Constitution for 20 members of the National Assembly.
In the end, the opposition did not need the dissident MNA’s votes to bring the opposition to the coalition of governments and to remove Imran.
After Imran Khan was sacked from the Prime Minister on the night of April 9, his declaration on the dissident PTI MNA was delivered to the ECP on April 14 by Acting NA Chairman.
According to Article 63-A of the Constitution, those who vote or abstain from the House of Representatives against the direction of their party in relation to the National Assembly elections may be disqualified on the ground of defection. Prime Minister or Prime Minister, or Ballot of Confidence or Ballot of Confidence, or Monetary Measures or Constitutional (Amendment) Measures”.
This provision states that the party leader must declare in writing that the MNA has departed, but must “give the party member an opportunity to explain why such a report is unfavorable to him” before making the declaration. .
After giving the party members a chance to explain why, the party leader will forward the proclamation to the chairman, who will forward it to the Supreme Election Commission (CEC). The CEC then has 30 days to confirm the declaration. If approved by the CEC, the member “will lose the House of Representatives and the seat becomes vacant”.
According to the article, a party dissatisfied with the decision of the Election Commission may appeal to the Supreme Court within one month. The Supreme Court must decide the matter within 90 days.