Treasury, opposition benches engage in heated debate on ‘constitutional package’

0
278
Treasury, opposition benches engage in heated debate on 'constitutional package'

ISLAMABAD, SEPT 16 (DNA) – Treasury and opposition benches on Monday engaged in a heated debate during the National Assembly session amid the ongoing political saga revolving around the incumbent government’s prospective constitutional amendment bill.

Today’s lower house of parliament session comes after the ruling coalition apparently failed to manage the required numbers i.,e a two-thirds majority in parliament despite strenuous efforts on Sunday which arguably centred around Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s assent to the proposed amendments.

The session, originally scheduled to commence at 11am yesterday finally got underway late night and was then deferred till today has now been adjourned indefinitely.

The possibility of the prospective constitutional amendments comes amid speculations revolving around an extension in the tenure of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa — who is set to retire in October this year — after the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) sought an early issuance of notification regarding the next top judge last month.

However, the government needs to secure a two-thirds majority in parliament to successfully pass any constitutional amendment.

After yesterday’s efforts failed to convince the JUI-F head to lend his support, senior Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Senator Irfan Siddiqui, while speaking to Geo News earlier in the day, claimed that the government’s bid to table the constitutional package has been “postponed indefinitely”.

He revealed that though Fazl’s “arguments were well-justified” and didn’t oppose the amendments on principle grounds, adding that he needed more time to review the amendment draft.

Constitutional equilibrium in focus
Speaking on the NA floor, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that in the government’s opinion, the constitutional amendment draft aimed at removing the constitutional imbalance and there was no politics involved in it.

The constitution allowed the parliament to legislate, he said.

He said the amendment draft had been talk of the town for few days, when a consensus would be reached on it then it would be floated in the House.

“As per the wishes of 250 million people, the institution has to be respected as mentioned in the Constitution.

“The constitutional court exists in several countries of the world. It is not that this court will be run by the government, it will also be run by the judiciary,” he said, apprising the assembly that 2.7 million cases were pending in the courts.

The defence minister remarked that parliament’s role in appointing judges should not be a rubber stamp. Their role should be a manifestation of the people’s power, he maintained.

Asif noted the draft’s summary had been presented before the parliament and in his opinion nobody would differ with it.

Commenting on the negotiations on the said amendments, Adviser to Prime Minister Rana Sanaullah said that meetings with the JUI-F chief were not “abortive” but they achieved results.

He added that Fazl and PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari had decided to broaden the scope of consultation for the good of democracy.

“It is not something fruitless or a matter of winning or losing,” he said, adding that today’s NA meeting would be adjourned indefinitely to complete the consultation process.

Bill should be debated in House
Addressing the session, PTI leader Asad Qaiser thanked the speaker for issuing production orders for his party leaders. He also saluted Fazl for his bravery and courage over his stance on the constitutional amendments.

Qaiser said the law minister himself said he did not have the draft, questioning where did the draft come from.

“The government must bring amendments but first they should be discussed in the House. Whereas, you are sneakily legislating in the night during holidays,” he said.

He said if the government wanted to introduce a law, it should be shared with the bar association and debated in the house so that people could know about it.