Ruckus in National Assembly as Ayaz Sadiq turns down opposition privilege motions on Panamagate

[HAIDER]

Chaos ruled the National Assembly (NA) on Wednesday with the return of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) to parliament as NA Speaker Ayaz Sadiq rejected the opposition's privilege motions on Panamagate.

Footage of the NA showed incensed members of opposition ripping up copies of the session's agenda and the privilege motions as both PML-N and opposition lawmakers yelled slogans accusing each others' leaders of corruption.

Angry MNAs throw sheets of paper in the air in protest. ─ DawnNews


The PTI and PPP submitted privilege motions in the NA claiming that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had misguided lawmakers in a speech regarding his assets delivered earlier this year.

The NA speaker clarified his decision to reject the motions, saying the matter is subjudice.
Having failed to win a verdict from the Supreme Court against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif over the Panamagate case last week, PTI on Tuesday decided to end its boycott of the NA and return to parliament. The SC last week deferred the hearing of the case till the first week of January.

Pandemonium broke out in the the PTI benches when the NA speaker opened the floor to the PML-N's Saad Rafique on a point of order following PPP leader Khursheed Shah's speech instead of allowing PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi to speak.

Amid chants of 'thief, thief', Rafique lashed out at the members of opposition clustered before the speaker's bench who were throwing papers in the air, and accused PTI lawmakers of 'only wanting to fight'.

"The PTI is scheming against democracy," he said. "PTI workers are hooligans, that's all they do in politics... They are only attending the session so they can collect their salaries," he claimed.

 

[Verve]

PPP's Panama Bill is under consideration and it's not a injustice but this motion is.

IK got what he wanted. This all in parliament is for the public to see and read about. Protect the king even if it means burying the parliament.

 

[mr.robot]

Gali gali main shor hai, nawaz sharif chor hai
Gali gali main shor hai, nawaz sharif chor hai

 

[SBD-3]

People here in general and PTI in specific need some education on law and rules

http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/publications/rules_procedure.pdf

 

[Emmie]

People here in general and PTI in specific need some education on law and rules
View attachment 360456 View attachment 360457
http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/publications/rules_procedure.pdf

How about reading the proviso to rule you highlighted, 111(o) ?

Anyway, these conditions are applicable to adjournment motions, not to the motions based on the question of privilege, please read condition "k" and title of the chapter.

The motion brought to the house is not sub judice at all, the court isn't deciding privilege -- all it asks is the explanation to what PM said on the floor of the house. In other words considering what NS submitted before the court a truth, why did PM lie on the floor of the house?

 

[SBD-3]

How about reading the proviso to rule you highlighted, 111(o) ?

Anyway, these conditions are applicable to adjournment motions, not to the motions based on the question of privilege, please read condition "k" and title of the chapter.

The motion brought to the house is not sub judice at all, the court isn't deciding privilege -- all it asks is the explanation to what PM said on the floor of the house. In other words considering what NS submitted before the court a truth, why did PM lie on the floor of the house?

Probably if you can provide me with the source of this, I would appreciate.

 

[Emmie]

Probably if you can provide me with the source of this, I would appreciate.

Chapter 12 in your own link, it covers privilege. Whereas rules and conditions you referred to fall within chapter 13 which covers adjournment motions.

Chapter 13, rule 111, condition "k", read as --- It shall not relate to matter of privilege. It means adjournment motions and privilege motions are assorted separately. Please refer to chapter 12 and see the conditions for privilege motion admissibility for yourself, rule 97.

 

[SBD-3]

Chapter 12 in your own link, it covers privilege. Whereas rules and conditions you referred to fall within chapter 13 which covers adjournment motions.

Chapter 13, rule 111, condition "k", read as --- It shall not relate to matter of privilege. It means adjournment motions and privilege motions are assorted separately. Please refer to chapter 12 and see the conditions for privilege motion admissibility for yourself, rule 97.

PTI submits privilege, adjournment motions against PM in NA
http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/365311-PTI-submits-privilege-adjournment-motions-against
NA new session: PTI submits privilege, adjournment motion against PM Nawaz
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/blo...-of-parliament-to-discuss-panama-leaks-issue/
So PTI submitted two motions 1)Adjournment 2)Privilege
And even the decision to reject the privilege motions (Which is solely Speaker's discretion) was the same.

The NA speaker clarified his decision to reject the motions, saying the matter is subjudice.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1302317/ru...wn-opposition-privilege-motions-on-panamagate

During Shah's speech, NA Speaker Ayaz Sadiq interrupted several times and directed the senior PPP leader to avoid speaking of matters that are subjudice.

In response, Shah, to loud applause, claimed that the parliament is superior to the judiciary as the house carries the mandate of 200 million people.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1302317/ru...wn-opposition-privilege-motions-on-panamagate

The real problem was however, that SMQ wasn't allowed a speech after the Leader of Opposition (despite it being turn of treasury benches)
So I guess PTI will now submit a motion against Ayaz Sadiq for not knowing the rules of the assembly.

 

[Emmie]

PTI submits privilege, adjournment motions against PM in NA
http://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/365311-PTI-submits-privilege-adjournment-motions-against
NA new session: PTI submits privilege, adjournment motion against PM Nawaz
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/blo...-of-parliament-to-discuss-panama-leaks-issue/
So PTI submitted two motions 1)Adjournment 2)Privilege
And even the decision to reject the privilege motions (Which is Speaker's discretion) was rejected with the same reasons

I thought you wanted people to learn law and rules, especially ones which deals with sub judice matters! From procedure book to news item! But anyway, what are we talking about, law and rules or speaker's discretion? Towards two motions, please read the title of the thread, we are talking about privilege motion.

 

[airmarshal]

Nawaz Sharif has been lying parliament. If we dont have the character to unseat a stealing PM, at least have the character to accept he has been lying.

His statements in Supreme Court and parliament are totally different. Thats called lying by the way.

This is the misfortune of this nation. We dont have mechanism to take this man to the task. All system including judiciary is corrupt. A matter of public interest has been postponed by judiciary for their vacations.

It does not bode well. The new chief justice is said to be PMLN own man. If Pakistan has become a crony land, the day is not far when the nation will be dead and forgotten.

 

[SBD-3]

I thought you wanted people to learn law and rules, especially ones which deals with sub judice matters! From procedure book to news item! But anyway, what are we talking about, law and rules or speaker's discretion? Towards two motions, please read the title of the thread, we are talking about privilege motion.

I think someone should be sane enough to get the point. That adjurnment motion was there which was rejected by the speaker using the rules and the speaker applied the same rules where he had complete discretion. But anyways, if someone is more concerned with the messenger than the message, I can't really help much.

 

[Emmie]

I think someone should be sane enough to get the point. That adjurnment motion was there which was rejected by the speaker using the rules and the speaker applied the same rules where he had complete discretion. But anyways, if someone is more concerned with the messenger than the message, I can't really help much.

Someone, especially one who inculcates law & rules to other people, should understand that set of rules made for one matter cannot be applied to another. How can you apply rules for adjournment motions to privilege motions when rules for adjournment motions themselves say they can't be applied to privilege motions? Please re-read rule 111(k). You can't charge a thief for theft under section 302 of PPC, can you? I tried my best to explain to you but seems you want law and it's interpretation your way, unfortunately I don't have any remedy for that special trait. Mr. speaker had no legal obligation to turn down privilege question, he did that because he hailed from government so I can understand. No hard feelings, take care and good night.

 

[HAIDER]

How about reading the proviso to rule you highlighted, 111(o) ?

Anyway, these conditions are applicable to adjournment motions, not to the motions based on the question of privilege, please read condition "k" and title of the chapter.

The motion brought to the house is not sub judice at all, the court isn't deciding privilege -- all it asks is the explanation to what PM said on the floor of the house. In other words considering what NS submitted before the court a truth, why did PM lie on the floor of the house?

That's what Aitzaz Ahsan said . When Speaker raised the objection about on going court proceedings .

 

[Syed1.]

Lol what an epic fail from SBD-3. Trying to teach rules and regulations and then gets schooled by Emmie

 

[SBD-3]

Someone, especially one who inculcates law & rules to other people, should understand that set of rules made for one matter cannot be applied to another. How can you apply rules for adjournment motions to privilege motions when rules for adjournment motions themselves say they can't be applied to privilege motions? Please re-read rule 111(k). You can't charge a thief for theft under section 302 of PPC, can you? I tried my best to explain to you but seems you want law and it's interpretation your way, unfortunately I don't have any remedy for that special trait. Mr. speaker had no legal obligation to turn down privilege question, he did that because he hailed from government so I can understand. No hard feelings, take care and good night.

I Believe if you would have read the news (I shared three sources, just in case you would try to dismiss one) that an adjournment motion was indeed submitted by PTI because you cant file a privilege motion as adjournment motion so there were Two motions (as you're so eager to point out to 111(K)) i.e. you can't ask the speaker to adjourn the current proceedings on a question of privilege. However, PTI tried to play safe by submitting both adjournment motion as well as a question of privilege since question of privilege takes superiority over adjournment motion but not the basis of adjourning the proceedings [111(K)]. However, I believe it was PTI who raised the question of differences in statements in SCP.Privilege motion or Privilege Question is an exclusive purview of the speaker since it doesn't require the proceedings underway to be halted to discuss the matter at hand. Both PTI and PPP knew that the questions would not be admissible since if admitted, parliament would start a parallel inquiry in CRPP over the issue with matter already in SCP. So please tell me whom would you believe if both come up with opposing conclusions? SCP or Parliament or whichever suits your beliefs? Otherwise, as I said before if what you're saying is correct that means the speaker himself doesn't know the rules and procedures so he should have admitted the questions (Both by PPP as well by PTI).

Lol what an epic fail from SBD-3. Trying to teach rules and regulations and then gets schooled by Emmie

Certainly not using empty verbatim, not my trade.