LAHORE, July 7: Politicians, legal experts and human rights activists speaking at a seminar on Sunday unanimously rejected the proposed constitutional amendments package on grounds that one single person could not introduce such amendments rather it was the sole authority of an elected parliament.

The day-long seminar was arranged jointly by the Lahore Press Club and the South Asian Partnership (SAP) on “Proposed political amendments and parliamentary system.”

The speakers slated the amendments and said they aimed to “strengthen dictatorship and involve public in an unnecessary debate”. The military regime was accused of taking extra constitutional steps while introducing such amendments.

Former chief justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah said the 1973 Constitution, though an outcome of the 1971 debacle, was the last remedy to ensure the working of a democratic government. He asserted that the Constitution had specified the role of the armed forces to the extent of the country’s defence only.

“The Constitution can only be amended through an elected Parliament and the newly proposed amendments are clearly an extra constitutional step,” he maintained.

He said all orders and ordinances passed by the president were supposed to be signed by him but Gen Musharraf had not signed certain orders especially those pertaining to former president Rafique Tarar’s resignation last year. He said even the chief election commissioner was not authorized to amend the Local Bodies Act and to issue administrative orders for holding a referendum.

Sajjad Ali Shah said that 17 judges of the SC could overrule the Doctrine of Necessity under which the military takeovers of July 5, 1977, and October 12, 1999, had been validated in Nusrat Bhutto and Zafar Ali Shah cases, respectively.

He said there was no way the SC could have ever allowed a military regime to amend the Constitution on it’s sweet will.

“This government does not need any help from the judiciary in the present circumstances since the rulers themselves are violators of law,” he said.

The former chief justice said that the judiciary could play a pivotal role in sending the military back to the barracks since it was the only institution in the country which could dare to challenge the rulers.

Mr Shah clarified that he had sought army help during the constitutional vacuum of November, 1997, as Article 190 of the Constitution did allow that “every executive and law enforcement agency could be called for the supremacy of law.

“I have never conspired. Had I done it, I would have connived with Benazir Bhutto in the first incident and Nawaz Sharif in the second,” he claimed.

President Supreme Court Bar Association Hamid Khan while speaking on the occasion said there was no point in supporting the proposed amendments package inclusive of those amendments appearing appropriate like fixation of women’s quota in national assembly and joint electorate.

“Partial support to such amendments would be interpreted by the rulers as a public mandate for introducing the whole package” Mr Hamid warned.

He alleged that these proposed amendments had been drafted through a centralized body like the NRB. He credited Ayub Khan for having established at least a commission for laying down the 1962 Constitution though he did not accept most of the recommendations of the commission.

He declared the proposed amendments as “brainchild of NRB Chief Gen Tanveer Naqvi” and said a huge amount of money had been spent on the preparation of this package. He asked the NRB to disclose the exact amount of money spent on the preparation of this package and the number of legal experts along with their nationalities consulted in this regard.

Hamid Khan said that there were certain legal lacunas in the package especially in the amendment prescribing that newly appointed prime minister would have to secure a vote of confidence within 60 days following his appointment and could be removed by president any time in case of any misconduct.

According to him, no compulsion for securing a vote of confidence had been laid down in the package for a prime minister replacing his predecessor ousted on misconduct.

“Emphasis is on checks only not on balances. Newly appointed prime minister or chief minister would now be seeking patronage of president which would lead to behind-the-scenes conspiracies” he said. He predicted that the amendment relating to removal of prime minister was more dangerous than the Article 58(2)(b) and could result in the appointment of five prime ministers within four-year tenure of one national assembly.

He claimed that the proposed amendments of fixing quota for women in the national assembly and joint electorate had already been provided in the Constitution and the present military regime could not be credited for that.

MQM’s Deputy Convener Farooq Sattar said the present government had used the clutches of technocrats to experiment with the administrative affairs and the country could not afford further experiments in this regard. He said that the country needed a radical change since the 1973 Constitution itself was not the last remedy to all the problems.

“Mere removal of Gen Musharaf would not make things work better since steps more concrete and permanent in nature are required to be taken.”

He said that had the government remained stick to its seven-point agenda only without taking interest in constitutional and administrative affairs over the last two and half years, it would have been a great success.

He proposed that all the political parties should reach an agreement with the armed forces that election would be held within three months following the dismissal of any government in future. He said there was an in-built tension between prime minister and president in the proposed package which would bring trouble in the future. —Reporter