ISLAMABAD, Nov 8: The federal law ministry said on Friday that article 63(A) of the Constitution, dealing with the floor-crossing, was in abeyance and the question of its amendment “does not arise.”
In response to Dawn story headlined as “Law minister’s move fails,” a spokesman of the ministry of law and justice has said that the news item appeared in a “local English daily” is false and baseless.
The spokesman said the minister never recommended to amend the law of floor-crossing, therefore, the question of its rejection or approval “does not arise.”
The spokesman added: “Needless to add, the Constitution is held in abeyance and the Article 63(A) would come into operation once the Chief Executive passes an order for the revival of the Constitution. The report contained in the news item reflects casual conduct on behalf of the reporter.”
The spokesman further denied that the law disqualifying those politicians who were defeated in the October elections to contest the Senate election was passed with ill motive. “The disqualification was brought in to forestall re-entry of the defeated candidates through political manipulations.”
Dawn adds: Interestingly, the law ministry on Friday issued two clarifications on the Dawn story. In the first stereotype clarification, it termed the report as “baseless, unfounded, false, and fallacious.”
It, however, withdrew the first clarification after few hours. In the second clarification, the government came up with the statement that the Constitution was in abeyance and the question of amending article 63(A) “does not arise.”
If the argument is accepted then why the government is so adamant on the LFO which, according to the government, has amended the Constitution and it refuses to accept the demand that the LFO should be taken back on the premise that the whole structure created through election would fall.
If the question does not arise of amending article 63(A), then the purported amendment in 63(A) through the LFO, would also be in abeyance and when the Constitution is revived then original 63(A) would be restored under which the parliamentary party leader would have the last say on the matter of defection of the members.
