Was it a summary disposal of no-confidence move at NA | By Muhammad Usman

60

Was it a summary disposal of no-confidence move at NA

3rd April was a defining day regardless of what may follow.People rose in unison and rejoiced it together.

They widely congratulated each other to see something refreshing in their chequered history too.

They were smug and jubilant to see ugly move of looters/robbers blocked to make a comeback.

They felt relieved on finding their last hope entrenched. It was indeed a great sigh of relief in a hapless land where only its nemeses called the shots.

Prior to it, their hearts were wrenched. The despondency was becoming thicker frighteningly with no traditional pointer in sight for better however, on the day at NA, something unusual, novel and singular happened which took all by total surprise.

It just took barely five minutes for Law Minister, Fawad Choudary and Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to wrap up the proceedings while giving ruling to dismiss the no-confidence move (NCM), being a product of foreign conspiracy, hatched to ditch Imran Khan thus, violating the constitutional requirements of loyalty to Pakistan, contained in article 5(1) of the constitution.

Was it a ruling by the speaker in line with constitutional imperatives?Was it a constitutional coup by a maverick? Was it a summary disposal of an NCM?

Before dilating further, it may not be out of place to mention this. Without meaning to indulge oneself in self-praise, it was more or less, the essence of what a legally untutored manlike me wrote last week, published in this newspaper under the title “Beyond the mammoth Amr Bill Maroof Jalsa”.

Its relevant excerpts read “No constitution in world discounts sanctity of right methods to achieve right ends.

In a democracy, a no-confidence move is a right proposition but needs to be pursued through right means.

There is no reason to disbelieve that our constitution does not embody clauses which make incumbent upon all concerned to follow the application of right methods to achieve right ends however, we only see to the contrary.

Does our constitution not prohibit horse trading and involvement of foreign powers in domestic and constitutional pursuits?

The presence of these elements are enough for its custodians to shoot down on the outset, any ulterior move on its name”.

The speaker is one of the custodians of the constitution and he did it to safeguard it from intended infringement.

Now coming back to the discourse, main underlying reason of speaker’s ruling against the NCM was minutes of meeting held between an official of foreign big power and our ambassador there, therein, it was stated that there would be a no-confidence motion to oust PM Imran Khan.

The bilateral ties between two countries depend on its outcome. If it succeeds, Pakistan would be forgiven for its mistakes.

Contrarily, Pakistan would face serious consequences thus, making it an Imran Khan specific proposition.

Before finalizing inferences from it and firming Pakistan’s response, PM Imran Khan took concerned quarters into confidence.

Most notable one was National Security Committee which also stamped the concerns of the country.

It is the highest forum on national security. Apart from this, enough evidences exist to confirm its veracity in sufficient and regime change is an enduring instrument of that big country to get their interests served since 1950s.

He offered the letter to Supreme Court and Parliamentary Committee on National Security but to no avail.

Yes, Imran Khan is an independent-minded leader. He has thrown gauntlet while risking his own office and life. It is no small act for the cause of national respect and autonomy.

In above context, action of the Speaker of the NA is neither a constitutional coup nor an arbitrary decision to dismiss the NCM as no country could grant a foreign power the right to topple an elected government under a conspiracy, infringing upon its national integrity and sovereignty.

Now matter of Speaker’s ruling is in apex court. Besides, a number of petitions on the subject, it has also taken suo motu action.

This causes many eyebrows to raise because there were numerous occasions of similar grave ramifications where it preferred the silence.

Most recent instance is of issue of instant letter and following horse trading by opposition parties to win no trust move.

MPs were seen, being bought as happens in an auction. MPs involved in anti-state activities/murder were being brought to cast votes in favour of the motion.

Two mega money launderers on bail were working day and night to make it a success and become its main beneficiaries.

This leaves much to be desired hence, maxims related to justice as of would remain on watch; justice must be seen to be done and justice hurried is justice buried.

Admittedly, two wrongs do not make right however, it leaves people much apprehensive when wrongs are too lopsided towards a side and it was the same side which tabled the no trust move.

Now take an analogy from an example of right cause and right effect. First the cause has to be right to produce right effect. First comes first.

If a cause is not right, its process needs to be abandoned because it could only produce an effect unrightfully thus, an exercise in futility. Such a thing is not even allowed in an ordinary household to save itself from a loss.

Here, it is a matter which involves our destiny. A no trust move has to be legitimate to produce a legitimate effect; removal of PM or otherwise.

If said move has foreign linkages, it is illegitimate and needs to be nipped in the bud to ward off greater loss to the country.

— The writer, a retired Lt Col, is a senior columnist based in Islamabad.

 

Previous articleWho will do damage control?
Next articleAfghanistan stands at the crossroads China’s voice is loud & clear | By Qian Feng