ISLAMABAD: A stalemate has once again stalled the selection of two members of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in a parliamentary panel due to a lack of consensus between the government and the opposition representatives.
The Constitution is silent on the way out if a deadlock emerges. The parliamentary committee on ECP appointments has equal representation of the government and the opposition. In view of such a composition, the key ECP nominations can only be made either through consensus or by majority.
After the impasse, the panel has unofficially formed a committee consisting of the nominees of the two sides to informally talk about the issue to hammer out an agreement. If no accord is reached, the two ECP members would not be selected. The standoff occurred as each side insisted that its nominees should be chosen. The constitutional timeframe specified for the appointments has already lapsed.
To initiate the process, though belatedly, Prime Minister Imran Khan had written a letter to leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif, proposing six names, three for each post of an ECP member. The communication was part of the mandatory constitutional consultations.
In response, the opposition leader had rejected these recommendations and instead suggested six names of his own for the positions. Instead of talking to Shehbaz Sharif directly or indirectly, Imran Khan sent all these names to the parliamentary committee for a decision.
In the beginning, the government constituted the committee in a way that gave it a majority so that its preferences could easily be picked by the panel. However, the opposition boycotted the proceedings of the committee and urged the speaker to ensure equal representation as required under the Constitution. The composition was changed accordingly.
Previously, President Dr Arif Alvi had notified the two current ECP members when the government had decided to unilaterally appoint them, ignoring the meaningful and result-oriented consultations with the opposition leader. The selections had been challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which had shot them down with the direction to the speaker to ensure a consensus by speaking to the two sides within a certain timeframe. The speaker had done so and successfully achieved a consensus at an early date.
Conscious of this IHC intervention, the government this time has shied away from going ahead unilaterally and has decided to follow the constitutionally mandated mechanism in the case of the nomination of two more ECP members.
Not much room is left for an accord between the government and the opposition parties considering the kind of relations they have. But contrary to this, they had quietly and conveniently reached an agreement without much hassle or loss of time on the selection of the incumbent Chief Election Commissioner, Sikandar Sultan Raja. In fact, this appointment had earned universal endorsement of all the political forces and players across the board.
Not only had the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) but the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUIF) had also supported the choice of Sikandar Sultan Raja as the CEC without any reservations.
According to Article 213, the prime minister and opposition leader will, during consultations, attempt to arrive at a consensus. But if they fail, they will forward separate lists of their nominees to the parliamentary committee for consideration which may confirm any one name. The total strength of the committee will be 12 members out of which one-third will be from the Senate.
The prime minister, in consultation with the opposition leader, is required to forward to the committee three names for hearing and confirmation of any one person. The panel to be constituted by the speaker comprises 50 percent members each from the treasury benches and opposition parties, based on their strength in parliament, to be nominated by the respective parliamentary leaders.
Court asked appellants to satisfy it on next hearing that how decision of single bench was not right
Petitioner’s lawyer informed court that parliament had passed 26th Constitutional Amendment
CM urged people to choose between resisting oppression and embracing freedom or continuing under shackles of slavery
Committee emphasised need for effective legislation to safeguard rights of parliamentarians
Muzammil Aslam highlighted need for 5,000 watersheds in KP, requiring an investment of Rs 115 billion
Justice Shahzad observed that with support of appellant, 85% power theft was witnessed in his locality
