Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker
Horoscope

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather
Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

May 17, 2005 Tuesday Rabi-us-Sani 8, 1426


KARACHI: PA session prorogued amid PPP’s uproar



By Habib Khan Ghori


KARACHI, May 16: The Sindh Assembly session was prorogued on Monday without discharging any business on the order of the day when opposition members from the PPP benches refused to allow Home Minister Abdul Rauf Siddiqui to make a statement regarding Shabana Mirani case.

Speaker Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah, who was presiding over the session, read out order of the governor to prorogue the session.

Earlier, the house had rejected the motion moved by Nisar Ahmad Khuhro, leader of the opposition, seeking permission to move his adjournment motion out of turn. There were 42 votes in favour and 64 against the motion while members of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal remained absent.

Before the chair could call for division in the House on the motion, deputy parliamentary leader of MMA Nasrullah Shaji made a brief statement condemning the police violence against activists of human rights in Lahore. However, he stated that mixed marathon race was against the principal of Islam. “We condemned the act of running the women in obscene dress on roads along with men,” he said. This statement was welcomed by the treasury benches by thumping their desks.

After the statement of MMA leader, the speaker called for voting in which Mr Khuhro was not allowed to move his adjournment motion out of turn. The motion reads as under:

“I move that the proceedings of this assembly be adjourned to discuss a matter of recent and urgent public importance namely blatant violation of the Constitution by police, who manhandled and mauled human rights activists, including former Senator Iqbal Haider, trying to hold a marathon to highlight the rising violence against women in Pakistan and promote ‘enlightened moderation’ in society, on May 14, 2005, and especially, the police brutality towards women activists, particularly HRCP chairperson Asma Jehangir, who was subjected to grave indignities in gross contravention of Islamic laws which guaranteed indisputable respect to all women.”

The speaker wanted to take up the question hour after the defeat of Khuhro’s motion when Shakir Ali of MQM from the treasury benches drew his attention about presence of home minister and asked him to brief on Shabana Mirani case.

The minister was about to make a statement under Rule 215, but the opposition members objected it as earlier the chair had announced to take up the question hour. The speaker reiterated that he had allowed the minister, but before the minister could make a statement, over a dozen members from both sides of the House rose from their seats and started speaking. Witnessing commotion the speaker prorogued the session around 12.50pm.

Earlier, after Mr Khuhro made his arguments in support to seek permission to move his adjournment motion out of turn, Law Minister Iftikhar Chaudhry was asked to give his version. He opposed the move of taking up the motion out of turn saying that the incident had occurred in Lahore and not anywhere in Sindh. “This matter could be taken up in Punjab Assembly, National Assembly and Senate and we would also discuss the issue on its turn, but not out of turn,” he stated. He maintained that there were courts and assembly in Lahore as well to take up the issue.

He expressed surprise over changing priorities of the opposition. When they first moved their motion out of turn, the matter was related to the incident of Lahore on arrival of their leader Asif Zardari. Later, they moved other motions as a result on the admissibility of the first motion the discussion was not yet completed.

The law minister was on his feet opposing the motion when the House witnessed rumpus, as Saifullah Dharejo of PPP refused to listen to the chair and over a dozen members including Farheen Moghal, Shazia Marri, Sharafun Nisa Leghari, Humera Alwani, Nuzhat Pathan, Ayaz Soomro, Sassui Palejo, Dr Mehreen Bhutto, Shama Mithani, Rafique Engineer and Makhdoom Jamiluz Zaman rose from seats and started drawing attention of the speaker in a bid to get a chance before the motion was put to vote.

The repeated requests of the speaker and warning when failed to prevail on Mr Dharejo and other standing members of the opposition to take back their seats, the speaker suspended the proceedings for half-an-hour around 11.45am.

On resumption of the proceedings at 12.15pm, the speaker made it clear that every member had the right to speak but according to the rules and it was his responsibility to listen to the opposition as well as the treasury side.

Referring to the remarks made by Mr Dharejo against him, he said he would conduct the assembly proceedings without taking dictation from anyone how to run the business. Therefore, all remarks passed against the speaker stands expunged.

On a point of clarification, Mr Dharejo offered his regrets saying that he was sorry if his words offended the speaker.

Qaim Ali Shah referred to Rule 192 and Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution pertaining to human rights and recalled Rules 72 and 73 of the rules of business, which allowed members to speak on the motion.

The speaker pointed out that there was no discussion on the adjournment motion, but, it was only seeking the permission to take the motion out of turn and under the rules after the mover the law minister had to give his version whether the motion could be taken up out of turn or not.

Mr Khuhro pointed out that he had also moved a resolution on the incident. “Can I expect that I would be allowed to move the resolution?” he asked.

The speaker pointed out that let your adjournment motion out of turn be decided first before taking up another issue.



Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005