LAHORE:
From questioning the honourability of suspended assembly members to calling their disorderly conduct a sheer violation of oath warranting disqualification, Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan has now taken a sharp U-turn — asking PML-N lawmakers to approach the judiciary to prove the veracity of their claims.
The climbdown has raised eyebrows with some suggesting that the speaker, who had wrapped himself in the flag of constitutionalism, may have overreached and was now quietly trying to retreat.
Pitched as a principled stand against parliamentary disorder, the move is now being read as an overzealous solo flight.
In the aftermath of the ruckus on the assembly floor, Speaker Malik had initially come out fuming against 26 Punjab Assembly members, making a case for their disqualification. To give the disqualification bid legal cover, it was reported that applications were submitted to the speaker’s office demanding action against the 26 lawmakers.
While visiting the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) headquarters — where he was widely misquoted by mainstream and legacy media as having filed a reference against the lawmakers — the speaker, while remaining vague about the reference’s status, said the members’ actions had violated their oath.
At the time, he had said such MPAs, whether from the opposition or treasury benches, had no right to remain in the House.
When asked in Islamabad whether he should have shown restraint, the speaker responded bluntly that his role was to maintain order in the House.
He conceded the disqualification attempt was his own initiative. Referring to the oath violation, he said he would “fight for the honour of the Constitution” and that “whoever becomes a casualty in this fight would have only their fate to blame”.
Speaker Malik remained one of the most vocal proponents of disqualifying the involved members.
It is pertinent to mention that The Express Tribune had earlier reported that legal experts did not see merit in the speaker’s contention that members could be disqualified merely for disorderly conduct.
The newspaper had also reported that the speaker had floated the idea of disqualification as a means to gain leverage over opposition lawmakers, using the threat as a smokescreen, particularly given the legal complications and consequences of such a move.
Now, with his new position — asking his party members to first establish in court that a grave violation occurred before he can take cognisance — the speaker appears inconsistent with his earlier stance.
It was revealed that by recording his view in writing, the speaker aimed to extricate himself from the controversy surrounding the disqualification reference. However, it was noted that the speaker had overplayed his hand.
One source said that a provincial minister should have taken the lead in advocating for disqualification publicly to make it clear they were acting based on the Panama judgment.
