November 21, 2002	Thursday	Ramazan 15, 1423

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Nov 20: The contention of the newly-elected speaker that the MNAs have taken oath under the Legal Framework Order is devoid of facts, against the Constitution and the law. His argument amounts to subverting the sovereignty of the House whose dignity Chaudhry Amir Hussain is bound to protect and defend.

This was commented by the acting secretary-general of the Pakistan People’s Party, Mian Raza Rabbani, in a statement issued here on Wednesday.

He said the speaker had chosen to make this statement before the Press and not in the House before the members when he was presiding over the session. This showed, the speaker knew that he could not make such a claim inside the House. It threw a dim light on him, he added.

“The correct legal and constitutional position is that the Supreme Court had in the Zafar Ali Shah case allowed a three-year period to General Musharraf in which elections to be held. The Supreme Court also allowed the General to make bare minimum amendments to the Constitution during the time given, provided that such amends were not in conflict with the basic character of the Constitution.

“The three-year period given by the Supreme Court has expired on Oct 11 after which the continuation of military regime is unconstitutional and illegal.

“With the revival of the Constitution order issued on Nov 15, the Constitution as it stood on Oct 12, 1999, when the General took over, stand revived.

“The Legal Framework Order at best is an expression of intention of the regime to make amendments to the Constitution. In order, therefore, to make it part of the Constitution, the LFO and all amendments made by the military regime will have to be placed before parliament in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Constitution for making the amendments.

“It is most unfortunate that the new speaker has chosen to make position controversial from the day one by taking a position on this vital issue contrary to the Constitution and the sense of the House which was expressed loud and clear by the members at the time of oath taking.

“With defence to the speaker, I do not wish to comment on as to why he chose to make such a far reaching announcement outside the House and not inside it.

“The speaker has been entrusted with the custodianship of the House. It is a sad reflection on him to have bypassed on the inaugural day the House itself in expressing an opinion on a matter which has far reaching consequences not only for the members, but also for the House itself.

“The speaker in his personal capacity may not be averse to making the House subservient to the generals, but as a custodian of the House he must show sensitivity to the feelings of the members.