Mazari And PPP’s Lawyers Won’t Participate In Proceedings On Punjab CM Election

Mazari And PPP’s Lawyers Won’t Participate In Proceedings On Punjab CM Election

Irfan Qadir Informed The Supreme Court

Irfan Qadir, the lawyer for Dost Mohammad Mazari, the deputy speaker of the Punjab Assembly, informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his client had instructed him not to take part in the case proceedings any further and that he would instead submit a petition for review of the court’s choice not to appoint a full bench. 

Farooq H. Naek, a PPP attorney, also opted out of the court proceedings. 

Supreme Court Resumes Hearing PML-Q Leader

This development comes as the Supreme Court resumes hearing PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi’s suit contesting the deputy speaker’s decision in the just-concluded Punjab chief minister re-election, which resulted in Hamza Shehbaz’s victory. 

Soon after 11:30 am, the hearings got started. The ruling coalition had previously said it would skip the hearings in retaliation. Both sides’ attorneys had already arrived in court. 

Read More | Punjab Cabinet Sworn In

Read More | Governor Punjab administers oath to CM Hamza

Three-Member Bench Consisting Of Chief Justice Of Pakistan

The case contesting Mazari’s decision, which is crucial to Hamza Shehbaz’s victory, is being heard by a three-member bench consisting of Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib Akhtar. 

Mazari made the decision not to consider the ballots of 10 PML-Q lawmakers who had voted for Elahi during the election, citing a letter from Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the party’s president, instructing them to support Hamza instead. 

Hearing Had Been Postponed

The bench had not received even a single legal justification for forming a full bench throughout yesterday’s hearing, the top judge noted. He informed Naek that the hearing had been postponed because of her request for more time. 

The legal question is still open, he continued. 

The problem, according to Justice Bandial, was whether the party leader could provide directives to the parliamentary party. “The parliamentary party decides [who to vote for] in accordance with the law. In the event that party policy is broken, the party leader may provide a reference. For this question, a full-court bench cannot be built.” 

Read Previous

PML-N’s Rafique Spells Out ‘Aims Of Project Imran’

Read Next

PTI Takes Coalition Rulers To Task over Campaign Against Supreme Court