Imran addressed the nation before that, speaking soon after the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Qasim Suri, dismissed the opposition’s motion of no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister as violative of Article 5 of Pakistan’s Constitution.

As the National Assembly met in the morning, apparently preparing to vote on the no-confidence motion, the Minister for Information & Broadcasting, Fawad Chaudhary, requested the Speaker to first decide on the constitutionality of the motion.

He quoted clause (1) of Article 5 to argue that the no-confidence motion, submitted to the Speaker in the first week of March, and tabled last week, went against the provisions of the Article.

Deputy Speaker Suri, who was in the chair, then proceeded to dismiss the motion as unconstitutional.

Imran, who was not present in the National Assembly, went on air within minutes to declare that the Pakistani people had defeated a conspiracy against the nation, and that he had advised the President to dissolve the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies and call fresh elections. Until then, a caretaker government under him would be in charge, Imran said.

What is Article 5 of Pakistan’s Constitution?

Under the heading ‘Loyalty to the State and Obedience to the Constitution’, Article 5 has two clauses.

Clause (1) states that “Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen”; Clause 2 states that “obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and every other person for the time being within Pakistan”.

How has the no-confidence motion triggered this article, according to the Deputy Speaker?

Fawas Chaudhary used Clause 1 to reiterate Imran’s allegation of a “foreign conpiracy” against the government. He said the no-confidence motion was a conspiracy hatched by a “powerful country” that did not want Pakistan to have an independent foreign policy. During another address to the nation on Friday, Khan had named the United States as the country behind the conspiracy, prompting a swift denial from Washington.

“On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented,” Fawad Chaudhary said on Sunday, without specifying which ambassador he was referring to.

“We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan’s path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government,” Chaudhary alleged.

Suri accepted the argument. “No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy,” he ruled. The points raised by the minister were “valid”, he announced.

What is the Pakistani opposition saying?

Blindsided by the gambit, which Imran had kept secret from most members of his own cabinet and his party’s parliamentarians, opposition leaders argued that while Chaudhary had quoted Clause 1, he had missed out Clause 2, which demands obedience to the Constitution of every citizen.

They alleged that both the Prime Minister and the Speaker had violated this provision by invalidating the no-trust motion.

They demanded that Imran, members of his government, and the Speaker be tried under Article 6, also known as the “treason” Article.

This article states that any person who abrogates or subverts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by force or by unconstitutional means shall be guilty of treason.

Also, Imran has called fresh elections under Article 58 of the Constitution, but as per this provision, a Prime Minister facing a vote of no-confidence cannot call an election. That is another questionable action, according to the opposition.

In the evening, opposition leaders announced that they would not leave the National Assembly until the Deputy Speaker’s ruling rejecting the no-trust vote and the decision to dissolve the House were rescinded.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has taken suo motu cognizance of the situation, the Dawn newspaper reported, quoting a spokesperson for the country’s Supreme Court.

What is the role of the Speaker in this affair?

The Speaker’s role is already under the judiciary’s lens. Opposition parties had earlier petitioned the Supreme Court against Speaker Asad Qaiser for not convening the session within the stipulated time of 15 days.

Newsletter | <a href=”https://indianexpress.com/newsl

The motion had been submitted to the Speaker on March 8, with a request that the Assembly be convened for the specific purpose of discussing the motion. But Speaker Qaiser put off convening the Assembly until March 25.

On that day, the Assembly was adjourned after an obituary notice. It next met on March 28, when the motion was tabled. The debate on the motion was set for March 31.

Suri, who was in the chair that day too, adjourned the house until April 3 as the opposition demanded an immediate vote.