LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) defered its hearing on the case challenging Hamza Shahbaz’s election as the Punjab chief minister till tomorrow, Bol News reported on Wednesday.
A LHC bench headed by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan resumed hearing the separate pleas — filed by PTI and PML-Q — against Hamza’s election as CM. Justice Shahid Jameel observed that Hamza’s lawyer will give arguments if the Supreme Court’s verdict on the presidential reference — seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution related to defecting lawmakers — applies to past events.
The apex court, on May 17, ruled that the votes of dissident members of Parliament (MPs), cast against their parliamentary party’s directives, cannot be counted.
Following Justice Jameel’s directive, Hamza’s counsel started his arguments, maintaining that the the ruling doesn’t apply to past events unless the apex court itself says so. “The truth is that Hamza’s election as Punjab CM hasn’t been challenged but different events had been challenged,” the counsel said.
At the completion of arguments by Hamza’s lawyer, PTI counsel Barrister Ali Zafar came to the rostrum.
In his arguments, Barrister Ali Zafar pleaded with the court that the SC’s verdict should be implemented instead of going after the point of past or future.
Justice Shahid asked the lawyer if the court can nullify the notification of Hamza Shahbaz’s election as CM. “Can this court play the role of the presiding officer?” asked Justice Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan.
“If the defecting lawmakers’ votes are not counted, then the presiding officer will have to be directed to hold re-election for the slot,” said Ali Zafar.
In the case of re-election, the notification regarding the appointment of Hamza Shahbaz would be nullified, said the PTI’s lawyer.
The court could only tell the presiding officer that he did wrong by counting the votes of defiant MPs, he added.
Earlier, the court called President Arif Alvi’s lawyer Advocate Ahmad Awais to the rostrum and sought his views on the remarks made by the single bench about the president.While giving his arguments, the advocate pleaded with the court to nullify the single bench remarks about the president.
At this, Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi asked if he meant to say that the remarks were given without hearing the president.
