PESHAWAR, March 16: The NWFP Assembly’s deputy speaker, Ikramullah Shahid, filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court on Thursday seeking that a proposal to decide a resolution of no-confidence against him through show of hands be declared unconstitutional and illegal.

The deputy speaker has requested the court to issue directives to the assembly’s speaker that till the disposal of the writ petition no motion of no-confidence should be decided against the petitioner by the proposed method of the show of hands.

He further prayed the court to direct the speaker for adjourning proceedings in the said motion till a final decision on the writ petition had been taken.

Four members of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal had submitted a motion to the assembly on March 13 for moving resolution of no-confidence against Ikramullah Shahid. The speaker has issued a notice to the deputy speaker and an assembly session has been convened for March 21.

The respondents in the petition, filed through advocate Mohibullah Kakakhel, are the speaker of the NWFP Assembly, the secretary of the assembly, the provincial law secretary and the ministry of law.

The petitioner said that he got elected as an MPA from PF-23 (Mardan) and was elected as deputy speaker by the assembly on Nov 27, 2002, and added that in the Senate elections he exercised his right of franchise according to his conscience keeping in view the merit of the candidates.

The petitioner said that he enjoyed the support of the majority in the provincial assembly and his opponents had now been adopting unconstitutional methods to unseat him. He added that a notice had been given for the passing of a resolution of no-confidence against him.

He said that the speaker of the NWFP Assembly had announced that the rules concerned would be suspended so as to pass the resolution through show of hand and not through secret balloting.

The petitioner contended that under section 11 of the Provincial Assembly of the NWFP Procedure and Conduct of Business Rules, 1988, it was clearly stated that voting on a resolution of no-confidence should be held through secret balloting. He added that Rule 240, under which rules could be suspended, was not applicable in the present case.

He said that the practice of voting on resolutions of no-confidence through secret balloting was prevalent in all parliamentary forms of government throughout the world.