KARACHI, Oct 2: A full bench of the Sindh High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a constitutional petition filed by Ms Benazir Bhutto, impugning the Legal Framework Order and recent amendments in the constitution and NAB laws, until Oct 12.

When the matter came up before the bench, comprising Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Musheer Alam, the Counsel for Ms Bhutto, Barrister Kamal Azfar requested for an adjournment.

His submission was that issues involved in this constitutional petition have been raised in several petitions before the Supreme Court and it would be appropriate that the matter be adjourned till a decision by the Supreme Court is reached on such issues.

He requested for a date in the end of October and in the first week of November.

Maqbool Elahi Malik, counsel for the federation submitted that he would be out of Pakistan during the later half of October and first week of November. Neither Mr Malik, nor AG Makhdoom Ali Khan objected to the adjournment.

In the petition, filed by her attorney Farooq H. Naek advocate, Ms Bhutto contended that clause ‘P’ of Article 163 (1) and/or Section 8 D (ii)n of C.E.O. No. 21 of 2002/C.E.O-211/ or Clause (r) of Section 99 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1974 are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

It is also her contention that Section 31 (a) of the NAB Ordinance does not apply to the petitioner and is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

The bench adjourned the matter until Oct 12.

Ejaz Shafi case: A full bench of the Sindh High Court on Wednesday dismissed a review application filed by Islam Hussain and upheld its Sept 20 order allowing Ejaz Shafi to contest the Oct 10 elections as a candidate for NA-239.

The review plea filed against the said order came up for hearing before a full bench of the Sindh High Court in which Islam Hussain had sought a review on the ground that he had another evidence which had allegedly proved that the BA degree of Mr Shafi was fake.

The evidence relied upon by Mr Hussain included two certificates allegedly issued by the University of Calcutta and a letter issued by the Indian High Commission at Islamabad.

Khalid Anwer, advocate, who appeared on behalf of Mr Shafi argued that the review application was not maintainable under the law. Even otherwise, he argued, the so-called certificates produced by Mr Hussain were fake because of the fundamental contradictions contained therein.

One of the contradictions between the two so-called certificates produced by Mr Hussain was that the certificate of Sept 9 allegedly issued by the University of Calcutta is contradictory to the earlier so-called certificate of Sept 3 issued by the University of Calcutta.

Mr Anwar argued that the so-called certificate of Sept 3 clearly accepts the fact that although exams for BA had been held in 1966, Mr Shafi had purportedly not appeared in in it. The certificate of Sept 9 denies even the holding of the exam in 1966.

It was also argued that the so-called certificates allegedly issued by the University of Calcutta had been obtained in a mysterious way to say the least.

He drew the attention of the bench to the fact that in the present circumstances in which India and Pakistan are on the verge of war with each other, a fax dated Sept 2, sent by Mr Hussain is replied by the University of Calcutta on the very next day. Thereafter, the University of Calcutta promptly and without delay issues another so-called certificate dated Sept 9 to Mr Hussain.

Even more surprising, he submitted, is the letter issued by the Indian High Commission at Islamabad to Mr Hussain. Mr Khalid Anwer contended that these events of alleged close cooperation and co-ordination were unbelievable in the current atmosphere of mistrust between the two countries.

It is amazing that the University of Calcutta, an organ of the Indian government, should pay for a fax from India to Pakistan to a Pakistani, Islam Hussain, and that too immediately? Why?

Mr Hussain praised the University of Calcutta and appreciated the efforts of the Indian High Commission at Islamabad blamed the Pakistan High Commission in India for not supporting him in his efforts.

The court dismissed the review application and upheld its order.