Bill barring independents from joining parties rushed through Parliament amid PTI opposition
Both houses of Parliament on Tuesday passed a bill seeking to bar independent lawmakers from joining a party after a stipulated period with the opposition PTI voicing a strong protest against it.
The bill, titled “Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024” has introduced amendments to the Elections Act 2017 and is being seen by political observers as a move to frustrate the Supreme Court’s July 12 ruling, which had declared the PTI eligible for reserved seats and also set it to re-emerge as the single largest party in the NA.
PML-N lawmaker Bilal Azhar Kayani had introduced the legislation in the NA a week ago, after which it had been rushed through the lower house’s Standing Committee on Parliamentary Affairs by 8-4 votes.
“Provided that if a candidate, before seeking allotment of a prescribed symbol, has not filed a declaration before the returning officer about his affiliation with a particular political party by submitting a party certificate from the political party confirming that he is that party’s candidate, he shall be deemed to be considered as an independent candidate and not a candidate of any political party,” the text of the bill, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, read.
Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar had briefed the committee that the bill would remove much confusion, causing PTI’s Ali Muhammad to express surprise at the minister’s defence of a private member bill.
Meanwhile, Shahida Akhtar of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazl) observed that such legislation would weaken the parliament.
The bill was presented in the Senate later in the day where it was passed by the majority.
Opposition leader Shibli Faraz termed it a “direct attack” on the Supreme Court and its verdict in the reserved seats case.
Meanwhile, the law minister said: “The elected Parliament has the right to lawmaking, not it cannot be given to 17 people.”
The bill also said that an independent candidate shall not be considered a candidate of any party if they filed a statement to that effect at a later stage.
Another amendment proposed to the election laws said a political party should not be allocated seats reserved for women and non-Muslim candidates if it fails to submit its list for the reserved seats within the prescribed time.
Interestingly, the amendments to sections 66 and 104 of the Elections Act also included a declaration that the proposed amendments would take precedence over court orders.
PTI decries bill
Speaking on the floor of the NA, PTI’s Ali Muhammad Khan argued that the bill would deprive him of his rights while Gohar Ali Khan also lamented its consequences for his party.
Ali Muhammad questioned whether the Parliament could be used by a political party to attack the Supreme Court for its political gains.
He said that his party could not be convicted for something it had done in the past even if the government moves forward with lawmaking against it.
“If my party is being granted a right through a Supreme Court order […] How can you make a new law after the Supreme Court’s order and deny us that right?” Ali Muhammad said.
“We are protesting […] We reject this bill. This is an attack on the SC through the parliament by the government,” he said, adding that lawmaking should be done for the benefit of the country.
“We will go to the SC against it and this lawmaking will be nullified because the Parliament is not standing behind this, there’s a political party behind it,” he said.
PML-N’s Kiyani defends bill
Speaking to the media outside the Parliament, Kiyani expressed the hope that the Senate would also pass the bill.
He said the legislation “further clarified and strengthened” already existing laws.
Detailing “three main” changes made in the Elections Act, he said a party that did not submit its list of candidates for reserved seats within the specified period would not be eligible for reserved seats after the elections.
Kiyani asserted that “no one could point out anything in the bill that was practically wrong or in conflict with the Constitution and the law”.
He added that the majority judgment in the case of the reserved seat was in his opinion “not in harmony with the Constitution”.
The PML-N MNA said he agreed with the minority judgment in the case, arguing that the PTI was not even a party in the case whereas the Sunni Ittehad Council was the petitioner yet was “not given any relief”.
Reading out the minority judgment, Kiyani claimed it said that “a new parliamentary party, which did not exist, had been created through the majority judgment”.
SC’s reserved seats ruling
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on July 12 declared the PTI eligible for seats reserved for women and minorities, dealing a major setback to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ruling coalition.
The verdict came after the top court heard a set of appeals moved by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) against the denial of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims to it by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
PTI-backed candidates, who had contested and won the February 8 elections as independents after their party was stripped of its election symbol, had joined the SIC to form a coalition of convenience.
The top court on July 12 annulled the decision of the PHC while also declaring the decision of the election regulator null and void, terming it against the Constitution of Pakistan.