ISLAMABAD: Pakistani Supreme Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said on Thursday the deputy speaker’s ruling not to allow voting on a no-confidence motion last week was “prima facie” in violation of the constitution and “wrong,” saying the bench would announce a verdict in the case at 730pm today.

The court met for the fourth time today, Thursday, to rule on the legality of political maneuvers that led Khan to dissolve the national assembly last weekend and call for fresh elections.

Khan was due last Sunday to face a no-confidence vote tabled by the opposition in the National Assembly. But deputy speaker Qasim Suri, a member of Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, threw out the motion, saying it was part of a foreign conspiracy and thus unconstitutional. He used Article 5 of the constitution, which deals with loyalty to the state, to make his case.

The president then dissolved the lower house of parliament on Khan’s advice.

The Supreme Court has since been hearing a case against the government moves filed by the opposition. The panel of five judges could order parliament to be reconstituted, call for elections or bar Khan from power if he is found to have violated the constitution. The court could also decide that it cannot intervene in parliamentary affairs.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Khan’s defense had argued the court did not have the authority to intervene in parliamentary proceedings.

“We’ll have to see if there is a greater design to defeat the mandate of the constitution,” Justice Bandial was widely quoted by media as remarking during Thursday’s hearing. “Prima facie the speaker’s ruling was in violation of Article 95 of the constitution.”

Article 95 outlines rules for a no-confidence vote against the prime minister.

“This is clear now the deputy speaker’s ruling is wrong,” chief justice remarked. “We have to see what happens next … We want stability in the country.”

Attorney-General Khalid Jawed argued that his focus was that fresh elections should be allowed to be held in the country and he would not defend the speaker’s ruling.

A day earlier on Wednesday, Ali Zafar, who represents the president a Khan ally, said the court did not have the “authority to review the speaker’s ruling,” adding that parliament could not comment on a case pending before the courts and the courts should likewise not interfere in parliamentary proceedings.

“Any direction from the parliament will be trespassing of the authority [of the court],” he said, adding that any direction to the speaker would mean giving direction to parliament.

The chief justice remarked that according to the petitioners, the court could review parliamentary proceedings in case there was a violation of the constitution.

“Your point is interesting that even if a ruling of the speaker is wrong, it enjoys a privilege,” he added, saying that what the speaker had done was “unprecedented” apart from the significance of Article 69, which says proceedings in parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

“This will have many negative consequences if allowed to happen,” the chief justice said, adding that the no-confidence motion was about to be adopted on the day of voting when the deputy speaker gave his ruling that it was unconstitutional.

Zafar replied: “The court should leave the matter to the public instead of interfering [in parliamentary proceedings].”

The chief justice remarked that the judges would respect the sanctity of the parliament but the Supreme Court could interfere if there was a violation of the constitution.

Earlier, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Babar Awan raised legal points to justify the speaker’s ruling and the subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly, saying there was a foreign conspiracy to topple Khan.  

Khan has said the plot to dislodge him was being orchestrated by the United States, which the State Department and the White House have denied.

“We want to know about the conspiracy before handing down judgment,” the chief justice said. “Apparently the deputy speaker’s ruling contains allegations instead of facts.”

The chief justice questioned if the deputy speaker could give such a ruling without revealing evidence and facts: “This is the constitutional point on which the court has to give its verdict.”

Bandial also asked Awan about the minutes of a March 31 National Security Committee’s meeting that reviewed a “blatant interference” in Pakistan’s domestic affairs by a foreign power.

Pakistan’s military, whose army, navy and air force chiefs were present at the NSC meeting, is facing growing calls by the opposition to clarify its position on the veracity of Khan’s complaints about a foreign conspiracy against him.

At Wednesday’s hearing the chief justice had asked for a record of the minutes of the NSC meeting. On Thursday, Naeem Bokhari, the counsel for National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser and Deputy Speaker Suri, presented the minutes when Justice Bandial asked who had participated in the huddle.

Responding to a query, Bokhari said the national security adviser, Dr. Moeed Yusuf, had briefed the meeting.

Justice Bandial noted that Dr. Yusuf’s name was missing from the minutes provided.

When another justice inquired if the foreign minister had attended the meeting, Bokhari responded:

“It seems like the FM wasn’t present at the parliamentary committee’s meeting.”