Though the absence of opposition leaders in the National Assembly and Senate may not directly hinder parliamentary proceedings, the protracted delay in their appointment may erode the parliament’s credibility and undermine the democratic framework.

Dawn talked to a number of veteran parliamentarians, constitutional experts and parliamentary reporters over the issue and found them almost unanimous in demanding that National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq and Senate Chairman Yousuf Raza Gilani should immediately recognise the democratic right of the opposition members by appointing their nominated persons as the opposition leaders in both houses of parliament.

The two key parliamentary offices have been lying vacant since August after the disqualification of Omar Ayub and Shibli Faraz by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in connection with their conviction in the May 9 cases.

The PTI then nominated Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) chief Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Majlis Wahdat-i-Muslimeen (MWM) leader Allama Raja Nasir Abbas for the opposition leader slots in the National Assembly and Senate, respectively.

Experts, lawmakers say this may erode parliament’s credibility, undermine democratic framework

During a recent session of the National Assembly, Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, while responding to the opposition’s protest over the delay, declared the issue “sub judice”. He was apparently referring to the petitions filed by Omar Ayub and Shibli Faraz in the courts, challenging their disqualifications.

“In my opinion, there is no legal justification for delaying the declaration of the leaders of the opposition in the National Assembly and the Senate,” said Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) President Ahmed Bilal Mehboob. He said the rules of business of the National Assembly did not provide for any timeframe for the declaration of the opposition leader, but the sense of Rule 39 was that the office should be filled on a priority basis.

Similarly, Mudassir Rizvi of the Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) said the delay was eroding parliament’s credibility and would set a wrong precedent. He said future parliaments would struggle to restore their prestige due to this action. It may be noted a number of PTI lawmakers last year were abducted from parliament after they took shelter inside the building to evade arrest.

A number of PPP leaders, a key coalition partner of the PML-N in the Centre, also found it difficult to defend the delay.

According to PPP Secretary General Nayyar Bokhari, the rules do not provide any timeframe for the appointment of the opposition leaders as the appointments were at the discretion of the speaker and the Senate chairman. He, however, said that he personally believed that the speaker and the Senate chairman should nominate the opposition leaders as soon as possible.

Mr Bokhari, who has also served as the Senate chairman, refused to talk about the ‘sub judice’ stance taken by the speaker, stating that the NA speaker must be aware of some legal difficulties in this regard, which only he could explain in a better way.

Mr Bokhari recalled that the rules of both houses of parliament were changed after PPP’s Makhdoom Amin Fahim was not appointed as opposition leader in the 2002 National Assembly by then speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain. Instead, he said, the speaker at that time nominated Maulana Fazlur Rehman as the opposition leader despite the fact that the Muttahida Majli-i-Amal (MMA) clearly had fewer members on the opposition benches than the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD), mainly comprising the PPP and the PML-N.

Mr Bokhari said under the rules, now the speaker is required to seek the names of the opposition leader from the opposition members with their signatures and is bound to nominate the person having the support of the majority.

While Mr Bokhari refused to speak on the issue in categorical terms, PPP stalwart Raza Rabbani appeared to be more critical of the speaker and the Senate chairman for “unnecessarily dragging” the matter.

According to Mr Rabbani, the rules of procedure and conduct of the business in both houses are very clear and it is the duty of the custodians of both houses to fill the vacant positions of the opposition leaders without any delay.

Mr Rabbani, who had also once served as Senate chairman, however, did not agree with the notion that the absence of the opposition leader had no impact on the functions of parliament. He explained that the opposition leader had an important role in setting the agenda and business of the house.

He said the opposition leader had the privilege to get the floor whenever desired to speak on any issue. He said that according to his information, by-elections had already been held on the seats vacated by the two opposition leaders, so the two houses were complete and, therefore, he could not comprehend the “sub judice stance” taken by the speaker. He was of the view that the parliament was “incomplete” without an opposition leader.

Senior parliamentary reporter Javaidur Rahman termed the delay in the nomination of the opposition leaders a violation of the Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed by the PPP and the PML-N in May 2006. He said in the CoD, the role of the opposition leader had been enhanced and the two parties had also agreed to appoint him as the head of the powerful Public Accounts Committee of parliament.

Senior journalist M.B. Soomro, who is also president of the Parliamentary Reporters Association, regretted that it had been weeks since the opposition submitted an application to the National Assembly secretary with the signatures of 74 members to appoint Mr Achakzai as opposition leader, but the speaker had not yet initiated the process.

Mr Soomro said it seemed that some powerful circles did not want Mr Achakzai as opposition leader. He also expressed his surprise over the continued silence of political parties present in the parliament over the issue.

On the other hand, PTI leader and former NA speaker Asad Qaiser said even if, for the sake of argument, they agreed with the speaker’s stance that the matter was sub judice, then he should know that they had already withdrawn the petition filed by Omar Ayub. He said they had also handed over the documents in this regard to the speaker. Replying to a question, he said the speaker had not conveyed them verbally or in writing that he had some objection to Mr Achakzai’s nomination, adding that the speaker “cannot say it because it is against the Constitution”.

Published in Dawn, December 7th, 2025