May 19, 2007	Saturday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 02, 1428

LAHORE, May 18: Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Sher Afgan and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Mian Raza Rabbani say that the annulment of the 17th Amendment alone will not restore the 1973 Constitution to its pre-1999 coup shape as a number of other 'irritants' will still be there.

However, PML-N chairman Raja Zafarul Haq and ARD secretary-general Iqbal Zafar Jhagra have supported the constitutional bill submitted by a dozen MMA lawmakers in the National Assembly on Friday.

MNA Liaquat Baloch, one of the movers of the bill, defended the religious alliance's initiative, saying that parties opposing it would be deviating from their commitment to rid the Constitution of all amendments made over the past eight years of the Musharraf rule.

Mr Baloch said that the MMA would soon move another bill to strike down the law which allowed Gen Musharraf to stay on as president and the army chief at the same time.

A constitutional amendment can be struck down by two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament, while all opposition parties put together have much less strength than even a simple majority.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Sher Afgan said that if the MMA was really serious about annulling the 17th Amendment, then it should quit the Balochistan coalition and Maulana Fazlur Rehman should give up the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly because the post was given to him in return for the religious alliance's support for the amendment.

Answering a question, he said the Legal Framework Order had incorporated a total of 29 amendments in the Constitution, of which only a few had been struck down as a result of the 17th Amendment. Thus, he said, the joint electorate, reduction in voters’ age from 21 years to 18, increase in the number of assemblies' seats, changes in the composition of the Election Commission of Pakistan would still remain part of the Constitution even if the entire 17th Amendment was annulled.

PPP leader Senator Raza Rabbani said that the MMA's bill was not a significant move and it wouldn't have any impact. This bill, even if passed, would not nullify all that the MMA had helped the ruling party to incorporate in the Constitution, he stressed.

He said the National Security Council, the president's right to hold two offices and many other things would survive the bill.

He said parties in the ARD were committed to retaining the joint electorate, increase in the number of assemblies' seats and reduction in voters’ age.

ARD secretary-general Iqbal Zafar Jhagra said that the MMA had not consulted the ARD before moving the bill. Still, he said, it was not a bad move.

He said that it appeared that the MMA was trying to acknowledge that it had made mistake by helping the government in its adoption. He said the parties in the ARD should take a collective decision on the move.

PML-N Chairman Raja Zafarul Haq said that although the MMA did not have the necessary support to have the 17th Amendment struck down, it was trying to establish that it was sorry for its past conduct. He said his party supported the move and many opposition parties were of the view that all amendments made after the 1999 military takeover should be annulled.

MMA leader Liaquat Baloch said since all opposition parties were committed to restoring the Constitution as it stood eight years ago, there was no need for the MMA to discuss the matter before tabling the bill in the National Assembly. Now, he said, it would become clear which party was really opposed to the 17th Amendment.

In his opinion, the annulment of the amendment would rid the Constitution of all changes made during the Musharraf era. He said if a party had a different point of view on the subject, it was free to move its own bill. He said the bill moved by the MMA provided other parties with a good chance to improve the Constitution.

Answering a question, he said the MMA would approach even the ruling party lawmakers to seek their support for the bill.

When it was pointed out that the bill was bound to be defeated as the opposition parties did not have the required strength in parliament to get it passed, Mr Baloch said it was a good opportunity for every party to present its point of view. He said when the opposition parties had moved a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, they were fully aware that the motion stood no chance of getting through, but they went ahead and criticised the government’s policies during the debate preceding the voting process.