Lahore:
To question the honesty of the members of the assembly suspended to call their disorderly conduct a violation of the supporting aggression justifying the disqualification, the president of the Assembly of Punjab, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, now took a lively turn – asking the legislators PML -N to approach the magistracy to prove the veracity of their claims.
The ascent raised the eyebrows with some suggesting that the speaker, who had wrapped himself in the flag of constitutionalism, perhaps exceeded and now tried quietly to withdraw.
Taken as a position of principle against parliamentary disorder, the move is now read as a solo flight too zealous.
In the aftermath of the heckling on the assembly floor, President Malik was initially released against 26 members of the Punjab assembly, pleading for their disqualification. To give legal coverage of the disqualification offer, it has been reported that the requests had been submitted to the speaker office requiring measures against the 26 legislators.
During the visit of the headquarters of the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) – where it was largely poorly quoted by the consumer media and inherited as having filed a reference against the legislators – the speaker, while remaining vague on the status of the reference, said that the actions of the members had violated their oath.
At the time, he said that such AMP, whether opposition or treasure benches, were not allowed to stay in the house.
When asked Islamabad if he should have been restrained, the speaker frankly replied that his role was to maintain order in the house.
He conceded that the disqualification attempt was his own initiative. Referring to the violation of the oath, he said that he “would fight for the honor of the Constitution” and that “whoever became a victim in this fight would only have their fate to blame”.
President Malik remained one of the most vocal supporters of the disqualification of the members involved.
It is relevant to mention that the Express PK Press Club had previously pointed out that legal experts had not seen the merit in the affirmation of the speaker according to which the members could be disqualified simply for disorderly driving.
The newspaper also pointed out that the speaker had launched the idea of disqualification as a means of obtaining a lever effect on opposition legislators, using the threat as a smoke screen, in particular given the legal complications and the consequences of such a decision.
Now, with its new position – asking its members of the party to first establish before the court that a serious violation occurred before it can be learned – the speaker seems incompatible with his previous position.
It was revealed that by recording his point of view in writing, the speaker aimed to get out of the controversy surrounding the reference of disqualification. However, it was noted that the speaker had overlooked his hand.
A source said that a provincial minister should have taken the lead by publicly pleading for disqualification to indicate that he was acting on the basis of Panama’s judgment.
