ISLAMABAD - Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has finalized its strategy to fight ‘legal battle’ in the apex court as it decided to engage former Attorney General of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan and Azam Nazir Tarar to represent the party as well as leader of the opposition in a case related to the ongoing no-confidence saga.
A two-judge SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Muneeb Akhtar today would take up again a petition moved by the Supreme Court Bar Association – an apex legal forum – instituted to seek a restraining order against the government’s “intentions” of preventing the parliamentarians from taking part in the no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan. Earlier, the same bench on Saturday had issued notices to ruling PTI, PML-N, PPP, JUI-F, Balochistan National Party (Mengal) and the ANP. The court also issued notices to the prime minister, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, National Assembly speaker and secretary in addition to other government functionaries. As far as the legal strategy of the largest opposition party PML-N is concerned, it will be supervised by a committee headed by the former law minister Zahid Hamid. Sources informed that former AGP Makhdoom Ali Khan and Azam Nazir Tarar are engaged to represent PML-N and Shehbaz Sharif being opposition leader separately before the apex court. The PML-N legal team would try to avert any possible hindrance in the way of the smooth passage of no-confidence motion from the National Assembly.
The attorney general of Pakistan on last hearing had apprised the apex court that the federal government was filing a reference under Article 186 of the Constitution, seeking delineation of the scope and meaning of certain provisions contained in Article 63-A of the Constitution. The CJP, however, observed that the court would take up the matter only when it came before the court. The bench observed that if any reference was filed, it would also be taken along with the SCBA plea.
Legal minds of the ruling party believe that they can further drag the matter with the intervention of the apex court in the matter as the interpretation of Article 63-A would requires time but on the other side the opposition is of the view that the court would not restrain parliamentary proceeding in accordance with law regarding no-confidence motion.
