ISLAMABAD, AUG 6: /DNA/ – The National Assembly Tuesday approved a bill proposing amendments to the Elections Act 2017 to bar lawmakers from changing their party affiliation amid strong resistance from opposition benches who termed the legislation “unconstitutional”.
Tabled by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawmaker Bilal Azhar Kiyani last month, the NA Parliamentary Affairs Committee approved the bill with the support of eight members, four members opposed it, and Shahid Akhtar, a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) MNA, abstained from voting.
The legislation, once it comes into effect following the approval from the Senate and the president’s assent, will prevent the individuals who contested the general election as independent candidates from changing their affidavit at a later stage to declare affiliation with any political party.
The bill, when it becomes a law, might reverse the PTI’s return to the parliament after its “resurrection” in the assemblies following the Supreme Court’s July 12 ruling which had declared the Imran Khan-founded party eligible for reserved seats.
Since then, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has notified as many as 93 lawmakers from three provincial legislatures as PTI members.
The electoral body issued a notification of 29 members of the PTI from Punjab, 58 from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and six from Sindh.
Meanwhile, 39 lawmakers in the NA, who had shown their affiliation with the PTI in their nomination papers, have also been declared by the ECP as PTI members.
What does the legislation say?
The legislation provisions retrospective effect and will apply from the commencement of the Elections Act 2017.
In its amendment to Section 66 of the Elections Act, the bill says that if a candidate does not submit a declaration of his affiliation with a political party to the returning officer (RO) before seeking allotment of the election symbol, they shall be “deemed to be considered as an independent candidate and not a candidate of any political party”.
Meanwhile, the amendment to Section 104 reads that if a political party fails to submit its list for reserved seats within the prescribed time period, it will not be eligible for reserved seats at any later stage.
Furthermore, it adds a new provision to the original legislation titled Section 104A which declares the consent or affidavit of an independent candidate regarding joining a political party “irrevocable” and prohibits its withdrawal and substitution.
The legislation argues that “neither the Constitution nor the Elections Act, 2017 provides for joining a political party by an independent returned candidate or candidates at a subsequent stage when they have already exercised the option to join the political party at a point in time as specified in the Constitution”.
Bill ‘attack’ on SC; PTI to move top court
PTI MNA Sahibzada Sibghatullah said the bill should be referred to a select committee, to which Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said that the standing committee had already discussed the bill.
“I propose that the House reject [Sibghatullah’s amendment],” the law minister said, following which the lawmakers turned down the proposal.
PTI MNA Ali Muhammad Khan said that the government is proposing changes to the election law to “attack” the SC. He proposed the same amendment as his party colleague.
In the same manner, the law minister said the bill is in line with the Constitution and that he does not oppose it.
For his part then, Sibghatullah said the Act was “unconstitutional” and that the government got the bill passed from the standing committee in haste. “They did not consider our reservations.”
He again proposed sending it to a select committee as it was a question of Pakistan’s future. Sibghatullah said that the bill had a retrospective effect, which would nix the apex court’s ruling. The bill was introduced based on “ill intentions”.
Sibghatullah’s amendment was then put before the House, and subsequently, rejected. The same happened with Ali’s proposed amendments.
After being given the floor, PTI’s Ali asked whether it was the parliament’s purpose to “attack” the top court for parties’ political interests.
“How can you, after the SC’s decision, deprive us of the [reserved seats] which is our legal right,” he said, chiding the treasury benches, as he recalled the court’s decision, which mentions that PTI was a political party.
The former federal minister said his party rejected the bill and asked the government to legislate, but it should always be in the country’s interest.
“We will move the court against this legislation,” he vowed.
In response, the law minister maintained that the legislation was in line with the Constitution.
“Ali [Muhammad Khan] claimed that this legislation was aimed at creating hurdles for his party. 41 of their members submitted in writing that they belong to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).”
The law minister reminded the House that PTI’s lawyers were not seeking seats for “their party”. He said that the party that did not participate in the elections could not be allotted reserved seats.
Ali said his party would file a petition in the SC against the legislation. Moving further, the law minister said that the opposition should not try to “distort” the facts.
Speaking on the assembly floor, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar echoed his colleague’s remarks on moving the Supreme Court against the amendments and remarked that despite the supremacy of the parliament, only the apex court has the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution.
“[The government] wants to overturn the court’s [July 12] decision through this legislation,” the PTI chief said.
“[Take a] look at your Constitution. On whose behest are you [government] passing [such] legislation?” Barrister Gohar questioned.
Terming the bill as contrary to the law and Constitution, the politician said that the government wouldn’t have proposed the said legislation if it had gone through the SC verdict.
Slamming the PML-N government, the PTI ally Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) Chairman Mahmood Khan Achakzai said that they would not allow the House proceedings to to run in this manner.
A speaker who is unable to produce a lawmaker in the House has no authority to hold the said office, the politico said, while firing a broadside at NA Speaker Ayaz Sadiq.
