ISLAMABAD: As the Elections (Second Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed by the National Assembly and Senate on Tuesday, the opposition announced to challenge the legislation in the Supreme Court.
The bill, which is meant to prevent the PTI-backed MNAs joining their party and deprive PTI of reserved seats, was passed by the lower house of parliament amid strong protest from the opposition. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQMP) expressed its reservations after the legislation was okayed. The opposition members gathered in front of the speaker’s dais and registered s strong protest through sloganeering and tearing copies of the order of the day and the bill. Following the passage of the bill, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan said the National Assembly could go for legislation but it could not interpret the Constitution, or set aside the verdict of the apex court. “It is true that the parliament is supreme but it cannot interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s verdict is final,” he said, adding the legislation being done was against the Constitution, law and rules. He said the way PTI was deprived of its mandate in the 2024 elections, it was also being deprived of reserved seats through this legislation which, he said, is unconstitutional.
Barrister Gohar advised Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to call Hasina Wajid and find out how to escape from the country. He recalled that the Supreme Court had given the decision that the PTI was a political party and would remain so but an attempt has been made to set aside the SC verdict. “They are going to attack the Supreme Court and get every decision of the apex court set aside,” he said. There was also a mistake in the wording of the Elections Act (Amendment) Bill 2024. Through the bill, the government is superseding the Constitution and that an independent candidate cannot join a political party.
He said instead of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, the bill was taken up by the Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. He suggested the formation of a special parliamentary panel to look at excessiveness with the PTI parliamentarians and their enforced disappearances.
MQMP parliamentarian Dr Farooq Sattar said that as an ally of the government, they have not been taken on board. He said the bill was bulldozed in the House as he was not allowed to speak on it before it was passed. The MNA warned there was a sense of deprivation in the country, saying that a quota system had eaten Hasina Wajid’s government. There is a need for grand reconciliation within political parties with the participation of the opposition and, if needed, the institutions should also be engaged. He said there is constitutional breakdown as the Supreme Court would also strike down this legislation.
PPP MNA Shazia Marri has said the bill was not against any court order but about ending “lota-cracy” and against changing loyalties. She said that a resolution on Kashmir was brought in the House and the opposition members protested against it. “Digital terrorism cannot continue in the country. They have fostered hatred and division. The opposition should stop whining to achieve its political goals so that people’s problems can be discussed in the House,” she added.
Minister for Law and Justice Senator Azam Nazeer Tarar said the Elections Bill (Second Amendment) Bill 2024 has been passed in the true spirit of Constitution. “The bill is according to constitutional framework as given in Article 51 and Article 106 of the Constitution,” he added. He said as per the assembly rules, this business of the House is allocated to the standing committee on parliamentary affairs.
Meanwhile, the National Assembly rejected amendments in the bill as moved by opposition members Sahibzada Sibghatullah and Ali Muhammad Khan with majority voice. The opposition members, while declaring the bill as unconstitutional, wanted the same to be referred to the Senate standing committee.
Bilal Azhar Kayani of the PMLN, who moved the private member’s bill, said that Elections (Second Amendment) Bill 2024 passed by the National Assembly would end ambiguity and provide more clarity on reserved seats. The bill on becoming an Act of Parliament would be deemed to have taken effect from the commencement of the Elections Act 2017.
The bill, seeking amendment to Section 66 of the Elections Act, reads: “A contesting candidate, before seeking allotment of a prescribed symbol, shall file a declaration before the Returning Officer about his affiliation with a particular political party, if any, along with a certificate from the political party showing that he is that party’s candidate from the constituency.” The proposed amendment seeks to start the section with “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any judgement, decree or order of any court including the Supreme Court and a high court”.
It also seeks to add a proviso to the section which reads: “Provided that if a candidate, before seeking allotment of a prescribed symbol, has not filed a declaration before the Returning Officer about his affiliation with a particular political party by submitting party certificate from the political party confirming that he is that party’s candidate, he shall be deemed to be considered as an independent candidate and not a candidate of any political party;
“Provided further that an independent candidate shall not be considered as the candidate of any political party if at later stage he files a statement duly signed and notarised stating that he contested the general elections as a candidate of the political party specified therein.” The bill also seeks to amend Section 104 of the Elections Act which deals with elections for reserved seats.”
The amendment bill also seeks to amend Section 104 (1) in its original form, and reads: “For the purpose of election to seats reserved for women and non-Muslims in an Assembly, the political parties contesting election for such seats shall, within the period fixed by the Commission for submission of nomination papers, file separate lists of their candidates in order of priority for seats reserved for women and non-Muslims with the Commission or, as it may direct, with the Provincial Election Commissioner or other authorised officer of the Commission, who shall forthwith cause such lists to be published for information of the public.”
The proposed amendment seeks to add the words “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any judgement, decree or order of any court including the Supreme Court and a high court” at the beginning of the section. It also seeks to add a proviso to the section which reads “provided further that if any political party fails to submit its list for reserved seats within the aforesaid prescribed time period, it shall not be eligible for the quota in the reserved seats at later stage”. It also seeks to insert a new Section 104A to the Act to make irrevocable consent for the joining of a political party by an independent returned candidate.
Later, the Senate, amidst noisy protests, hastily adopted the Elections Act Amendment Bill 2024, which was dubbed as an attack on the judiciary by the PTI-led opposition senators. Immediately after the Question-Hour was over, PMLN’s Muhammad Talal Chaudhry introduced the bill in the Upper House of Parliament through a supplementary agenda which was passed without having been referred to the House standing committee concerned.
Leader of Opposition in the House Syed Shibli Faraz termed the bill a direct attack on the Supreme Court and noted that it was against the spirit of the judiciary. He regretted that parliament was being used for this ill-intentioned legislation. He explained that people in a democratic country choose their representatives through votes but this was not the case in Pakistan, as the Election Commission of Pakistan failed to meet its constitutional obligation to hold free and fair elections. Shibli alleged that the commission also failed to conduct general elections within 90 days following the dissolution of the assemblies and went against the Constitution.
He said parliament had been used to amend the law to provide for the appointment of retired judges as election tribunals, out of the fear of the decisions of the sitting judges. Shibli asked the Pakistan Peoples Party to redeem itself from the position, it had taken decades ago by opposing the bill.
Responding to his speech, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar strongly defended the bill and insisted it was in accordance with the scheme of the Constitution and aimed at clarity. He also made it clear to the opposition that in the recent verdict, the judges were unanimous that the reserved seats could not be given to the Sunni Ittehad Council. He also noted that it was the PTI that had contended before the apex court that the reserved seats should be given to the SIC. He added under Article 51 of the Constitution, the reserved seats go to a party which contests elections proportional to the number of general seats won by it. He said the independent candidates under the law have three days to join a political party and the decision is irreversible.
It was the right of parliament to legislate making it clear that no other institution can do it. “We cannot give this right to 17 individuals. The mandate to amend and delete and add anything lies with parliament,” he remarked. The law minister said there was a difference between the interpretation of the Constitution and re-writing the green book. He said the Constitution had been re-written when Article 63-A had been interpreted when it was declared that that vote would be polled but not counted.
Later, the bill was passed through a voice vote amidst loud and noisy opposition by the PTI members.
Later, when PTI Parliamentary Leader Syed Ali Zafar was on his feet to speak on the bill, ex-chairman Senate Farooq H Naek stood up to draw the attention of the chair towards the relevant rules that speeches/ discussions could not be allowed once the bill was adopted after clause by clause reading. Senate Chairman Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani explained that he would have to give time to the other side as well if the floor would be given to Ali Zafar.
The Senate was later adjourned to meet again on Friday morning.
