ISLAMABAD: PMLN parliamentary leader in the Senate Irfan Siddiqui Thursday hinted at the possibility of tabling the much-talked about constitutional package in parliament in the first week of October.
Talking to a group of journalists here, he explained that the structure of the proposed constitutional court would have a ‘federal looking face’ represented by the federating units. He said the coalition government was in contact with the JUI-F chief Fazlur Rehman, who had agreed to the concept of constitutional court but wanted clarity on many things, including the number of judges, procedure of their appointment, tenure, retirement age and service structure.
Senator Irfan, however, conceded that the proposed key legislation could not pass through the parliament without the JUI-F support.
The PMLN leader recalled that the establishment of constitutional court had been agreed upon under the Charter of Democracy signed in May 2006 between two former prime ministers Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. He pointed out that the charter was endorsed by all key political leaders, including PTI founder Imran Khan afterwards. Regarding the proposed change in the procedure for appointment of judges, he explained that before the passage of the 18th Amendment, the then chief justice of Pakistan and the provincial chief justice had a pivotal role to play in the appointment of judges.
He noted that as per the amendment, the cases of appointment in the superior courts were to be processed through two forums i.e. the ‘Judicial Commission’, headed by the chief justice of Pakistan and an eight-member parliamentary committee having equal representation from the treasury and as well as the opposition benches.
“The-then chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry forced us to pass the 19th Amendment and that parliament unwillingly passed the 19th Amendment which in practical terms paralyzed the Parliamentary Committee on Appointment of Judges.”
In the name of independence of judiciary, he claimed, the authority of parliament had been undermined and emphasized that the purpose of proposed amendment in procedure for appointment of judges was to go back to the 18th Amendment, to give a meaningful role to parliament.
About the issue of reserved seats, he said the judiciary had the power to interpret the law if the parliament enacted a law against the Constitution. But he questioned where an appeal could be filed if, for instance, the judiciary decided something against the Constitution.
He contended that the court’s verdict was based on a law that did not exist, following the recent amendment in the Elections Act, 2017 and asked ‘what should we do when we are to choose between the Constitution and the judiciary’.