Lahore:
From questioning the honestability of suspended assembly members to calling their disorderly implementing a pure violation of oath that guarantees disability, Punjab assembly halls Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan has now taken a sharp U-turn-bearing PML-N legislators to turn to the judiciary to prove that their demands.
The climbing has raised the eyebrows with some who suggested that the speaker who had wrapped up in the constitutional flag may have exceeded and now quietly tried to retreat.
The movement is read as a principled stand against parliamentary disorder and is now read as an excessive solo flight.
In the wake of Ruckus on the assembly floor, speaker Malik had originally come out to shake against 26 Punjab members, which made a case for their disqualification. To give disqualification bidding legal coverage, it was reported that applications were submitted to the speaker’s office, which required action against the 26 lawmakers.
While visiting the Electoral Commission in Pakistan (ECP) headquarters – where he was widely cited cited by mainstream and older media as having submitted a reference to the legislators – said the speaker while remaining vague about the status of the reference, the members’ actions violated their oath.
At that time he had said that such MPAs, whether from the opposition or treasury, had no right to remain in the house.
When asked in Islamabad if he should have shown restraint, the speaker replied mute that his role was to maintain order in the house.
He admitted that the disqualification attempt was his own initiative. With reference to the violation of Ed, he said he would “fight for honor for the Constitution,” and that “the one who becomes an accident in this fight would have their fate to blame only.”
Speaker Malik remained one of the most vocal advocates to disqualify the members involved.
It is relevant to mention that Express Pakinomist had previously reported that legal experts do not such a profit in the speaker’s claim that members could only be disqualified for disorderly behavior.
The newspaper had also reported that the speaker had floated the idea of incompatibility as a means of gearing over opposition legislators using the threat as a smoke screen, especially considering the legal complications and consequences of such a movement.
Now, with his new position – asking his party members to first establish in court that a serious violation occurred before he can take knowledge – the speaker seems incompatible with his previous attitude.
It was revealed that the speaker was intended to extract himself from the controversy of the disqualification reference by registering his point of view. However, it was noted that the speaker had overplayed his hand.
A source said a provincial minister should have taken the lead in advocating in public to make it clear that they were acting based on the Panama judgment.
