ISLAMABAD, June 9: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) plans to move the apex court by filing a constitutional petition seeking interpretation whether President Pervez Musharraf can contest elections in uniform for the second term.
“Undue controversy on the presidential elections and irresponsible statements from all sundry have necessitated that the apex court should resolve this controversy as it involves constitutional implications rather than political motifs,” SCBA President Malik Mohammad Qayyum told reporters here on Friday.
It is the duty of the Supreme Court, which is also the custodian of the constitution, to interpret such issues, he added.
The petition will seek explanation from the apex court on the controversy whether a president can be elected twice by a parliament, whether Gen Musharraf can continue in uniform for another term and whether the new assembly is required to elect new president.
On Hudood ordinance, Malik Qayyum was of the view that it was a controversial set of legislation and therefore should be repealed.
He also suggested that such laws should either be amended or revoked completely.
The Hudood laws are contrary to the spirit of Islam, he said, and demanded that the government should take cognizance of the matter since many innocent persons were being victimised under this law.
Necessary provisions of the Hudood laws could be incorporated into Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and other statutes, he suggested.
Referring to the Federal Shariat Court (FSC), he said this institution should be dissolved and its powers should be delegated to the high courts.
He said judges who took oath under the constitution and later had to take another oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) were enjoying constitutional status and therefore fresh oath was not mandatory for them. Whereas, those judges who had taken oath only under the PCO were required to be administered fresh oath under the constitution.
About government’s intention to set up a federal court in Islamabad, Malik Qayyum said such a court could not be established by an act of the parliament, as a two-thirds majority was required for a constitutional amendment.