ISLAMABAD, Sept 5: A Supreme Court bench hearing a challenge to the holding of dual offices by Gen Pervez Musharraf asked the government on Wednesday to inform it on Thursday (today) when would Gen Musharraf’s term as head of state end.
“Let the reply come as things should be in black and white,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry heading the seven-member bench observed.
The bench was hearing review petitions of the Pakistan Lawyers Forum praying that Gen Musharraf be restrained from getting himself re-elected from the present assemblies, petitions of Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed against his retention of the post of Chief of Army Staff and a separate petition of the Jamaat against the holding of two offices by the president.
The chief justice asked senior advocate Akram Sheikh, representing the JI, when was the term of Gen Musharraf as the president coming to an end.
“This is a question which has no straight answer,” Mr Sheikh replied. He said that at present, no-one was duly holding the office of the president; there was a de facto president. However, he said, Gen Musharraf’s election for another term would be held between Sept 15 and Oct 15.
Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar said that in his view the president could not hold any other office after the expiry of his present term.
The chief justice then asked Sharifuddin Pirzada, the president’s counsel, if he had filed any reply to petitions asking when would the president’s term end. Mr Pirzada said he would inform the court about the date after consulting the president, for which he sought time.
Reading section 2 of the President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004, Mr Sheikh said Gen Musharraf had first taken over the highest constitutional post by removing a duly-elected president, Rafiq Tarar, in 2001 under the Provisional Constitutional Order and then obtained a vote of confidence from parliament. The dual office act, he maintained, was discriminatory because it had been prepared for one person – Gen Musharraf – and not for all army chiefs. Likewise, no legislation could be made for an office already existing in the Constitution, but an amendment had been made through Article 63(1-d), the counsel said.
The court adjourned the hearing for two weeks to review its earlier judgment dismissing the PLF petitions. The adjournment came when advocate A. K. Dogar, representing the lawyers’ forum, sought time for reply when he was asked by the bench about the urgency because towards the end of the president’s current tenure fresh elections were to be held.
“Much water has flown under the bridge and will you like to become a person to derail the entire system which is already coming to an end,” the chief justice said. However, A. K. Dogar maintained that the PLF wanted to block future ‘adventurists’ as martial law was imposed every now and then.
The PLF has pleaded before the court to review its June 24, 2005, judgment rejecting petitions against the 17th Constitutional Amendment and that President Gen Musharraf could not keep two offices simultaneously because the parliament could bring any amendment to the Constitution.
