Deputy Speaker Rolling Case; PTI's request for in-camera briefing was rejected

 

The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) has rejected the plea of ​​PTI lawyer Babar Awan for in-camera briefing in the case of Deputy Speaker's rolling. According to details, a five-member large bench headed by the Chief Justice is hearing the case. During the hearing, Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that the court is being accused of not making a decision, how can one give a unilateral decision? After which PTI lawyer Dr. Babar Awan while initiating the arguments said that MQM, TLP, Jamaat-e-Islami are not a party in the case, Rah-e-Haq and Baap Party are also part of the parliament but not a party. I am grateful to the court for taking notice of the nation.

Continuing his arguments, Babar Awan said that the court was told that the rolling of the Deputy Speaker was malicious and unconstitutional. On the other hand, he was declared a traitor under Article 5. The Chief Justice said that no article can be viewed separately but Article 95 has a special purpose. The PTI lawyer said that Shahbaz Sharif has demanded the formation of a commission in the press conference. The petitioners want the reference to the Security Committee to be ignored. Can Pakistan be compared to the constitutions of India, Australia or England? Political party which has government in its center, province, Kashmir, GB, they say ignore this political party.

He further added in his arguments that the petitioners claim that they have come to save democracy, I am sure there will be no point in this case, isn't all the proceedings of Parliament under Article 69? The current situation has arisen due to Sindh House and Lahore hotel. Can what happened in Sindh House and Lahore hotel be ignored? The decision of the British court quoted in the case does not apply. I will also give a note of Qur'an and Sunnah and Mufti Taqi Usmani on the role of the members. Naeem Bukhari will give arguments on the rolling of the speaker.

Babar Awan said that everyone in Pakistan must abide by the constitution and laws, everyone is subject to the constitution and law, citizens must be loyal to the state, those who come to Pakistan from abroad also have rights. The constitutions of other countries do not provide such rights. In an interview with Babar Awan, the Chief Justice said, "Are you describing the rolling cop scene of this speaker?" To which Babar Awan replied that this is the background, sir. On this the Chief Justice said, then you must also tell the final result of this. Can give such rolling without bringing to the fore? This is the constitutional point on which the court has to decide. Can the Speaker go beyond Article 95 and give a ruling which is not on the agenda? Be sure to defend the speaker's rolling but on solid material.

On this the PTI lawyer said that you have been told 3 ways, on this the Chief Justice in a conversation with Babar Awan said that don't tell us the way we will take the way ourselves, you should state the facts while Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan Addressing Babar Awan, he also said that if official matters are to be discussed then this political party cannot say. The Chief Justice then asked when the meeting of the Federal Cabinet was held. To this Babar Awan replied that he would find out the date of the cabinet meeting and tell me. I would like to put before the court the briefing given by the Foreign Office. On this, the Chief Justice rejected Babar Awan's request for in-camera briefing and said that at present he is not asking for a letter and there is nothing for him to hear on camera.

During the hearing, the Attorney General asked Babar Awan to read from Rowling what is in it. On this, the Chief Justice said that the point of the Attorney General is also correct. We also do not want to get involved in foreign policy matters. You do not want to discuss the events. On this occasion, the PTI lawyer said that the PDM parties demanded to bring the matter in the parliament, written notices were given to all the political parties. I am pointing out that the country is angry with the Prime Minister of this country on such and such an issue. If the no-confidence motion is successful, then everything is fine. Confidence comes which is mentioned elsewhere.

Continuing his arguments, Babar Awan further said that the opposition parties boycotted the parliamentary committee on national security. Naeem Bukhari will present the details of the committee meeting. The national security adviser had briefed the parliamentary committee. Decided to protest, the council declared interference in Pakistan's internal affairs.

After this Babar Awan also spoke to the spokesperson of Pakistan Army on private TV in which the DG ISPR had said that what was stated in the National Security Committee is our position and we agree with the announcement of the National Security Committee meeting. On this occasion, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked what was the decision of the Cabinet on the briefing of the Foreign Ministry. In response, the PTI lawyer said that the other country mentioned in the letter was not happy with our Prime MinisterWhat will be the consequences if the no-confidence motion fails?

On this, the Attorney General once again said that it would be appropriate for the lawyer of any political party not to talk about foreign policy, it would be appropriate to read only what is written in Rolling. During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that it is up to the Speaker's counsel to do so. Section 5 says that every person should be loyal to the state of Korea. No doubt every citizen should be loyal to the state, what action was taken against those who were accused? On which Babar Awan said that our assembly is also run through parliamentary committees, the government did not take any action against them, PTI decided to take action against the members, Pakistan is first, therefore the Prime Minister I acted cautiously and I am also cautious.

On this occasion, the Chief Justice in his remarks said that apparently this case is of allegations, they are wrong or do not go into the correct details. Importantly, you are taking us somewhere else, is it a matter of Article 69 or not? We have to rely on the foreign constitution to decide whether or not to do it. We have to end this case. Delay in this case is becoming a problem for us. Rolling and want to talk about Article 69.

After this, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that you are giving incidental evidence that if this happened then it will happen, how will you link these incidents with individual personalities? Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that this means that the Prime Minister does not know anything, an investigation is underway. In reply, Babar Awan said that the Prime Minister who knows that he is not speaking in the interest of the country, the Prime Minister is not an investigator, only an investigator will investigate.