PTI workers stage violent protest, enter Sindh House in Islamabad by force

[Norwegian]

View attachment 825457

Fake Patwari news

 

[Vapnope]

The vicious circle every 4 years and nobody is going to learn a thing because everyone is alike. The sole loser of these shenanigans is Pakistan and eventually the common people.

 

[RealNapster]

So, Sindh's resources are being used to facilitate horse trading and thats fine. But protest is not.

If any one should be protesting, it should be people of Sindh against government of Sindh. It's because of the sleepy Sindhis that PPP is free enough and have plenty of time to starts such endeavours.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I think either you are ill informed or me. As far as what I know wasn't it PMLN and ppp who had consensus and made it illegal for p1g ahm horse trading? This was to ban their members to join pti.

Secondly pti never complained because those mnas were losers and had a history of very low votes. Once they got ticket from pti, their votes skyrocketed due to the pti name.

So, shameless p1gs now saying they have no confidence on a person who gave them ticket and made them something out of nothing by the grace of Allah.

63A defines defection. Voting against one's party as I said it, happens all the time. Happens in democracies all over the world. In the UK, there was a huge parliamentary process to push through the EU withdrawal act, government tried three votes if I'm not mistaken, first two times it failed despite the imposition of a three-line whip - and it should be noted that this is the whole point of having the whip. Members vote against government's bills all the time, par for the course. Defection and floor crossing are another matter.

The issue with PTI's stance on this is that they wish to apply it retroactively and before the vote, or after counting, and without going through the proper process - bending the rules in a bid to save IK. Here's what 63A says on the subject of the relevant grounds for disqualification, and the ultimate process (I've highlighted both pertinent points here):

63A.

Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc. (1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party composed of a single political party in a House- (a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party; or (b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relations to- (i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or (ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or (iii) a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill; he may be declared in writing by the Party Head to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned: Provided that before making the declaration, the Party Head shall provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him. Explanation: "Party Head" means any person, by whatever name called, declared as such by the Party. (2) A member of a House shall be deemed to be a member of a Parliamentary Party if he having been elected as a candidate or nominee of a political party which constitutes the Parliamentary Party in the House or, having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, has become a member of such Parliamentary Party after such election by means of a declaration in writing. (3) Upon receipt of the declaration under clause (1), the Presiding Officer of the House shall within two days refer the declaration to the Chief Election Commissioner who shall lay the declaration before the Election Commission for its decision thereon confirming the declaration or otherwise within thirty days of its receipt by the Chief Election Commissioner. (4) Where the Election Commission confirms the declaration, the member referred to in clause (1) shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant. (5) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Election Commission may within thirty days, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court which shall decide the matter within ninety days from the date of the filing of the appeal. (6) Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to the Chairman or Speaker of a House. (7) For the purpose of this Article - (a) "House" means the National Assembly or the Senate in relation to the Federation and a Provincial Assembly in relation to the Province, as the case may be. (b) "Presiding Officer" means the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, as the case may be. (8) Article 63A substituted as aforesaid shall come into effect from the next general elections to be held after the commencement of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010: Provided that till Article 63A substituted as aforesaid comes into effect the provisions of existing Article 63A shall remain operative.

Anyway, I reserve my comments on 63A, I think it needs serious change. But let's see if the SC agrees with either the PTI's view of the Speaker being able to pre-empt or retrospectively disqualify members and/or their votes, vs. the above reading which says that the vote and the member stand until the matter is escalated via the courts and the ECP. IMO the latter is more likely, 63A is more reactive - it's also a deterrent but I can't think of any examples where it was preventatively applied, and that too in the manner that IK + Speaker wish to apply it.

My knowledge of law and constitutional theory/jurisprudence is extremely limited. I'd invite more knowledgeable members to comment on the likely SC opinion outcome of reading the above. @saiyan0321

 

[manpk77]

Why Bajawa is not interfering now? Where is the establishment now? Will they keep sitting like this when country burns.

 

[khail007]

Why Bajawa is not interfering now? Where is the establishment now? Will they keep sitting like this when country burns.

Establishment interferes, Pakistanis protests. The establishment does not interfere Pakistanis protests.

We have some genuine psychological issues, which are the result of trauma as we are ruled by corrupts and thieves politicos.

 

[POPEYE-Sailor]

Fake Patwari news

Why you always become ban ?

 

[Skywalker]

Burnol is what you need lol atm

Yes I have got the stock free of cost for patwaris.

Why you always become ban ?

View attachment 825492

sher kay agay yeh bander kaun hai.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Highly doubt it. It will be chaos like the Bangladesh movement. Establishment will $$$$ their pants. Pakistan needs to forget about green revolution etc, just educated the awaam to leave the corrupt and vote some decent people in power.

Pakistan needs Green Long March.

 

[El Sidd]

63A defines defection. Voting against one's party as I said it, happens all the time. Happens in democracies all over the world. In the UK, there was a huge parliamentary process to push through the EU withdrawal act, government tried three votes if I'm not mistaken, first two times it failed despite the imposition of a three-line whip - and it should be noted that this is the whole point of having the whip. Members vote against government's bills all the time, par for the course. Defection and floor crossing are another matter.

The issue with PTI's stance on this is that they wish to apply it retroactively and before the vote, or after counting, and without going through the proper process - bending the rules in a bid to save IK. Here's what 63A says on the subject of the relevant grounds for disqualification, and the ultimate process (I've highlighted both pertinent points here):



Anyway, I reserve my comments on 63A, I think it needs serious change. But let's see if the SC agrees with either the PTI's view of the Speaker being able to pre-empt or retrospectively disqualify members and/or their votes, vs. the above reading which says that the vote and the member stand until the matter is escalated via the courts and the ECP. IMO the latter is more likely, 63A is more reactive - it's also a deterrent but I can't think of any examples where it was preventatively applied, and that too in the manner that IK + Speaker wish to apply it.

My knowledge of law and constitutional theory/jurisprudence is extremely limited. I'd invite more knowledgeable members to comment on the likely SC opinion outcome of reading the above. @saiyan0321

So they will now undermine the article 62 63. Makes sense.

 

[Leviza]

Yes I have got the stock free of cost for patwaris.


sher kay agay yeh bander kaun hai.

Keep your stock with you
U will be needing it soon lol
Typical youthia

 

[Skywalker]

Keep your stock with you
U will be needing it soon lol
Typical youthia

youthia is better than patwari aka swine. your choice

 

[PakAlp]

Pakistan needs Green Long March.

Will not be successful. Pakistan is not Egypt.

 

[Leviza]

youthia is better than patwari aka swine. your choice

why showing me your family background and how they brought you up?

Kaisey kaisey log hai is duniya mai,

 

[hussain0216]

Keep your stock with you
U will be needing it soon lol
Typical youthia

Yaar what is this crap, for how long do you people want Pakistan destroyed by sharifs, bhuttos, zardaris and fazls

People are tired they have had enough, why are you people intent on bringing these repeated failures back