ISLAMABAD: The lawyers of Dost Muhammad Mazari and Pakistan Peoples Party boycotted the hearing of Punjab chief minister election case in the Supreme Court.
The apex court resumed hearing of the case of the Punjab chief minister’s election for the third day. In this case, deputy speaker of Punjab Assembly rejected 10 votes of PML-Q MPAs, consequently, Hamza Shahbaz defeated Pervez Elahi.
During the hearing, Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir and PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek told the court that they will not be participating in the hearing as a boycott is being observed.
Pervez Elahi, who had been defeated on July 22 after 10 PML-Q votes were rejected by Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly, had challenged the ruling in the SC. The SC formed a three-member bench to hear the case, but the coalition government objected to it and demanded a full court take up the matter.
However, after hearing arguments from all sides for nearly eight hours on Monday, the SC decided not to form a full court bench, saying that the same bench would hear the case.
As the SC decided not to form a full bench, the ruling coalition and the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) decided to boycott the apex court’s hearing.
Today’s hearing
Irfan Qadir, lawyer of Dost Muhammad Mazari, told the bench that his client had told him not to be a part of the proceedings as a country-wide boycott of the judiciary is being observed.
Irfan Qadir further told the SC that he would challenge the apex court’s decision relating to the full court — wherein the top court decided to not form a full bench to hear the case.
Following Qadir, PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek came to the rostrum and informed the CJP that he would not be part of the proceedings. At this, the CJP told him that he “is not a party in the case”.
The CJP said that “no legal” grounds were presented before the court; arguments were presented only regarding the party head’s directions; the court arrived at the conclusion that in the current case, there was no need for a full bench.
CJP Bandial said the real question was who could give directions to party lawmakers. The constitution clearly states that the parliamentary party will give directions to MPs, he said.
