PESHAWAR: A writ petition challenged in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) the conduct of polling in the Senate on two motions of no-confidence against the chairman and deputy chairman Senate, which the petitioner claimed were rejected due to partisan conduct of the presiding officer.
The petition was filed by a citizen Shahid Orakzai. He has sought an order to declare the entire proceedings of the Senate session for no-confidence motion on August 1 null and void.
The petitioner believed conduct of the presiding officer was unconstitutional and had political tilt towards the federal government of which the MQM is a coalition partner.
He also requested the high court to declare respondent no 1 (Senator Muhammad Ali Saif) disqualify as member of the Senate for violating Article 62 (1) (4) of Constitution.
The petitioner prayed before the high court to direct Senate secretary to initiate fresh proceedings on the two resolutions and, accordingly, ask the president of Pakistan to appoint a suitable presiding officer for the proceedings of the no-confidence motion. Senator Muhammad Ali Saif, Senate secretary, Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani, Deputy Chairman Saleem Mandviwala and the president of Pakistan were made parties in the petition.
The petitioner questioned before the court that: “Whether the President can nominate any partisan person to act as Presiding Officer for any business under Clause (4) of Article 53?” Another point of law, the petitioner put before the court was “Whether the Presiding Officer can cast a vote in the voting on a resolution of no-confidence against the Senate chairman.”
The petitioner stated that the instant writ petition warranted the immediate attention of the high court to the massive rigging in the polling of barely 100 votes on the floor of the Senate.
“The upper house was protectively locked against undue interference and every vote cast was televised for full public view yet the result shocked the whole of Pakistan. Even the winners were embarrassed by the scoreboard. More than a dozen senators took a U-turn right inside the polling booth and the secrecy of ballot became a curtain for betrayal and cheating,” the petitioner explained in the petition.
The petitioner also raised a legal point before the court about casting of vote by the presiding officer and explained that under Article 55 (1) of Constitution, he can only cast his vote when there is chance of equality of votes, but in the present case there were 99 votes and there was no chance of equality of votes between the candidates.
He explained that under Article 55, the presiding officer shall not vote except in the case of equality of votes and respondent presiding officer voted in violation of Article 55 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further added that if couple of votes were not rejected, the result would have been 50-50 and that result by itself would invoke clause (1) of Article 55 of Constitution.
About interference of the prime minister in the Senate proceedings, the petitioner stated that in fact the members of his party did cast their ballots against the resolution and very much in defense of the chairman reflected the party policy. “It has shown that the prime minister was fully in the game and was part of every fair and foul move in the thoroughly political contest,” the petitioner stated.
