|
|
|
| April 26, 2002 | Friday | Safar 12, 1423 |
Referendum unjustified: SC told
ISLAMABAD, April 25: The Supreme Court bench, hearing petitions challenging the holding of referendum, was informed by a petitioner that Gen Pervez Musharraf was not the first military ruler to hold referendum for prolonging his stay in office.
“Col Qadhafi of Libya, Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Gen Pinochet of Chile, and Gen Irshad of Bangladesh also held similar referendums,” said Moulvi Iqbal Haider, who is often used by “invisible powers” to state such things before the court which any professional lawyer will be hesitant to state.
He appealed to the court to hold that there was no bar on Gen Musharraf to hold referendum, adding that Gen Zia’s referendum was condoned by the National Assembly and after that five parliaments came into being but none of those bothered to express any opinion on the issue.
He said that Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed, one of the petitioners, remained member of the Senate but he never raised his voice against the holding of referendum by Gen Zia.
The petitioners’ counsels completed their arguments on Thursday, leaving the stage for the government lawyers to start defence of assumption of office of president by Gen Musharraf and holding of referendum to prolong it for five more years.
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani would open the defence argument, followed by Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Advocate-General of Punjab; Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada.
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada said he being the senior lawyer would advance his arguments after all the other counsels finished their pleadings. The court is likely to complete hearing on Saturday.
Advocate Sharif Bukhari, representing the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, stated that the Chief Executive did not enjoy immunity from legal action provided under Article 248 of the Constitution.
He pointed out that the Chief Executive was not accepted as the prime minister, but was only allowed to use the powers of the prime minister in the transitory period.
Referring to the written reply submitted by the respondents, the counsel stated that on the one hand the respondents demanded immunity under Article 248, on the other they had stated that Constitution was held in abeyance.
He said the respondents had, purposely, not mentioned the word election in the written statement, and said that referendum was nothing but an appeal to the political sovereigns. The counsel stated that his client, ARD, a conglomerate of 15 political parties, was equally entitled to go to masses.
The counsel further stated that no legal necessity existed for the holding of referendum. The Referendum Order, he said, was not an honest legislation unlike Article 96 (a) which had com