LAHORE:
From questioning the honor of the members of the suspended assembly to calling their disorderly conduct a rape of an oath that justifies disqualification, the president of the Punjab Assembly, Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan, has now taken a strong change of U, asking PML-N legislators to approach the judicial one to prove the veracity of their statements.
The climb has raised his eyebrows with some suggesting that the speaker, who had wrapped in the flag of constitutionalism, may have extended and was now trying to retire.
Presented as a position of principles against parliamentary disorder, the movement is now read as a solo flight too jealous.
Following the ruckus on the floor of the assembly, the speaker Malik had initially left the 26 members of the Punjab assembly, presenting a case for disqualification. To give the legal coverage of the disqualification offer, it was reported that the requests were submitted to the speaker’s office demanding actions against the 26 legislators.
While visiting the headquarters of the Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP), where it was widely cited by the media and inherited that had presented a reference against the legislators, the speaker, while remained vague about the state of the reference, he said that the actions of the members had violated their oath.
At that time, he had said that such MPA, either from the opposition or the treasure banks, had no right to remain in the house.
When asked in Islamabad if you should have shown moderation, the speaker responded bluntly that her role was to keep order in the house.
He granted that the attempted disqualification was his own initiative. Referring to the rape of the oath, he said that “he would fight for the honor of the Constitution” and that “whoever becomes a victim in this fight would only have his destiny.”
The speaker Malik remained one of the most vocal defenders to disqualify the members involved.
It is pertinent to mention that the Express PAkGazette had previously reported that the legal experts did not see merit in the speaker’s statement that the members could be disqualified simply by a messy conduct.
The newspaper had also reported that the speaker had floated the idea of disqualification as a means to obtain influence on opposition legislators, using the threat as a smoke screen, particularly given the legal complications and consequences of such movement.
Now, with his new position, asking the members of his party to first establish in the court that a serious violation occurred before he can have knowledge, the speaker seems inconsistent with his previous position.
It was revealed that when registering his written point of view, the speaker was aimed at getting out of the controversy surrounding the disqualification reference. However, it was observed that the speaker had exaggerated his hand.
A source said that a provincial minister should have taken the initiative to advocate publicly disqualification to make it clear that they were acting based on the Panama judgment.
