tampering with the constitution in pakistan

Can an unconstitutional act be considered a ‘brilliant political move’, a ‘masterstroke’? Similarly the sabotage of both politics and constitution in Parliament by Prime Minister Imran Khan on 3rd April is being seen by many in Pakistan. As a result of Mr. Khan’s action, there is no national assembly and no federal cabinet in the country to date. Mr Khan lives on as prime minister for another week. As prime minister, Mr Khan asked the President of Pakistan to dismiss the parliament. According to the constitution, a new caretaker prime minister and cabinet must be announced within a week, and elections must be held in 90 days. The dissolution of Parliament and the manner in which it was carried out is being seen as ‘fantastic’, mainly because it was not expected and also because of the way it was dealt.

The events of 3 April will go down as one of the most interesting, clever, devious and outright unconstitutional (of which there have been many) moves in the political history of Pakistan. Here is a meticulous history of the events of the past few weeks that have led to the constitutional and political crisis Pakistan is now facing.

Opposition’s plan

Joint opposition inside and outside Parliament, mainly comprising former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), former President Asif Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman’s Jamiat Ulema-e-Rahman Islam-Fazal (JUI-F) launched a movement a few months ago to constitutionally remove Mr Khan’s coalition government led by his party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). This opposition created an umbrella group, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), in September 2020. It was clear that Mr. Khan’s model of governance, particularly with regard to the economy, was failing. Since he came to power in August 2018, the Pakistani rupee has lost 35% of its value against the US dollar, inflation has been running in double digits for several months, and debt from only a few countries and the International Monetary Fund has helped the economy. is maintained. hardly swims. There is huge resentment against the deteriorating economic situation and the PDM made it a cornerstone of its anti-government strategy.

The PDM, however, balked at how the political process to remove Mr Khan should continue. The two main parties of the PDM – Mr. Sharif’s PMLN and Mr. Zardari’s PPP – often had different intentions, from the members of the PDM resigning themselves from parliament to forcing Mr. Khan to resign. After weeks of political foresight and unity, the PDM finally reached a stage where it was able to dismantle Mr Khan’s coalition government and form a majority in parliament with former PTI allies, moving and passing a no-confidence motion against Mr. was capable. Mine. The intention, having won the PDM, was to elect a new prime minister from the group and, given the poor state of the economy, to hold new elections within a few months. In any case, the new government would have 17 months before the end of the five years of Parliament. Mr Khan was not one to give up so easily. As he said on several occasions, he would “fight till the last ball”.

Mr Khan took to the streets, held several rallies, taunted the opposition about its composition, and called three PDM leaders “scoundrels” and “guilty”. He rallied his followers. It became clear that he had entered electoral mode. While the opposition gained strength inside parliament, Mr Khan alleged that there was a “foreign conspiracy” against Pakistan and his government and that the US had decided to oust him. He showed a letter, which is said to have been written by a US official, in which these threats were made. It later became a memo written by a Pakistani official in Washington DC. Yet, whether or not such a letter existed, Mr. Khan raised the ‘foreign conspiracy’ theory and it became part of his political narrative. He said that the Leader of the Opposition was a part of this conspiracy and, therefore, a traitor to the state and the Constitution of Pakistan.

a surprising turn of events

On 3 April, when Parliament gathered to pass a no-confidence motion, this was exactly what was said to reverse the proceedings. The Law Minister stood up and cited Article 5 (loyalty to the State and obedience to the Constitution) of the Constitution to say that the opposition’s motion of no confidence should be rejected as it had conspired against the State of Pakistan. The Deputy Speaker read out a statement agreeing to the Law Minister’s contention and the Parliament session ended immediately. The opposition parties, who gathered in Parliament to pass a motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister, which were of course passed, the way the Minister of Law and the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly initiated and ended proceedings – all In a few minutes. Soon after rejecting the no-confidence motion, Prime Minister Khan informed Pakistani voters on television that he had asked the President of Pakistan to dissolve the National Assembly. Within minutes the President did the same on the advice of the Prime Minister and in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan.

Many complexities have come to the fore regarding the events of those few minutes. A question was raised whether the deputy speaker’s action – he ended the session of Parliament without giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to answer to the Law Minister – was valid. Given that it all happened within minutes, it seems clear that the Speaker, the Vice President and the President had pre-planned and coordinated the way the events would take place. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court of Pakistan is ready to debate and settle the course of events relating to the Constitution, legal opinion and precedents suggest that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with proceedings in Parliament. On first reading this would mean that the deputy speaker’s decision cannot be challenged by the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the Chief Justice of Pakistan has taken suo motu cognizance of the events of April 3 and a Supreme Court bench has constituted. Most lawyers agreed that the vice president’s move was unconstitutional, yet also regard parliament as sacrosanct. They argue that the decision of the Deputy Speaker cannot be challenged.

Prime Minister Khan has repeatedly argued that since the opposition wanted him to resign and call elections, he has already done so and should be grateful. While the opposition’s part has got what it wanted, it knows it has been played out. If elections are held in the fog of unconstitutionality now, they will be as tainted as the 2018 elections. At the time, there was much speculation that a special state body had ensured Mr. Khan’s selection. That institution is distinguished by its absence from public discourse at the moment and waits for someone to act.

S Akbar Zaidi is a political economist based in Karachi. These are his personal views and do not represent the views of any organization