How Ayaz Sadiq as speaker dealt with PTI members’ resignations

ISLAMABAD: Former Speaker Ayaz Sadiq says the resignations submitted in 2014 by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) members of the National Assembly were dealt with in accordance with the Constitution and rules and in line with the judgments of the superior courts. In his ruling delivered on April 6, 2015, he had stated: “Regarding the vacation of a seat due to the absence of a member for 40 consecutive days of the sittings under Article 64(2), the fact was brought to the notice of the assembly as required under the rules.

However, the motion was to be moved by a lawmaker and thereafter the House would have decided about its acceptance or rejection and not the speaker. However, no motion was as yet tabled.” Ayaz Sadiq had written that on September 3, 2014, PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi along with other members attended a session of the joint sitting of parliament. He was asked to come to the speaker’s chamber to discuss the issue of resignations but after making a speech he along with the other PTI lawmakers had left the House. That means, he wrote, that they were not ready to verify the genuineness and voluntary nature of their resignations and up till now they have not yet individually appeared and verified their resignations. Ayaz Sadiq pointed out that the resignations were submitted en bloc in the speaker’s office. As those were not handed over to the speaker personally, therefore, in accordance with the Constitution and rules, notices were issued to the members to see the speaker in the chamber in order to determine their genuineness and voluntary nature.

Before that on September 2, 2014, Javed Hashmi, then belonging to the PTI, attended the House, delivered a speech and at the end requested the speaker to accept his resignation, which was given effect and notified accordingly. While interpreting Article 64 in 1976, Ayaz Sadiq said, the Supreme Court held that under this provision the speaker has the right and duty to satisfy himself as to the genuineness and validity of the resignation by a member before it is allowed to take effect.

“As a necessary corollary of that, the speaker will have to make a proper enquiry if there appears anything tending to create any doubt with regard thereto. What will be the magnitude of the enquiry or whether, in a particular case, any such enquiry will at all be necessary, will depend on the facts of each case and it is not possible nor even desirable to lay down a criterion for general application.”

The ruling quoted Rule 43 which says a member may by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker resign his seat.

“If a member hands over the resignation letter to the speaker personally and informs him that it is voluntary and genuine and the speaker has no information or knowledge to the contrary; or the speaker receives the letter by any other means and he, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, either himself or through the National Assembly Secretariat or through any other agency, is satisfied that the resignation is voluntary and genuine, he will inform the assembly of the resignation.

If a member resigns his seat when the assembly is not in session, the speaker will direct its intimation specifying its date be given to every member immediately.”