ISLAMABAD, Sept 24: A nine-member bench of the Supreme Court, hearing a set of identical petitions challenging President Pervez Musharraf holding two offices, on Monday rejected four out of a total of 10 petitions and questioned the tendency of issuing sweeping statements against the president by holding him responsible for all ills.
The bench dismissed the petitions of Shahid Iqbal, Shahid Orakzai, Maulvi Iqbal Haider and Mohammad Asghar Khan after briefly hearing them.
Shahid Iqbal in his petition pleaded that Senate Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro should assume the office of the president since the incumbent president was not qualified.
The petition of Shahid Orakzai was dismissed because it does not involve a live issue. Maulvi Iqbal Haider’s plea was dismissed on the ground that he insisted that the term of the president was expiring in 2009 when the president himself had said that his term would expire in Nov 15, 2007.
The petition of Mohammad Asghar Khan was dismissed because he was not present in the courtroom. Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum opposed other petitions and said those were not maintainable since the fundamental right of none of the petitioners had been infringed. “Everyone has the right to contest the presidential election, but none of the petitioners has contended that he is a candidate for the presidential election,” he said, adding that no one could prevent a person from contesting the election.
The AG was of the view that the petitioners were pre-empting the powers of the chief election commissioner and argued that questions raised by them in the court could be decided by the CEC at the time of the filing of nomination papers as he held a constitutional post.
However, Justice Rana Bhagwandas, heading the nine-member bench, observed that it was difficult to subscribe to the views of the AG that the CEC could strike down any law.
Justice Falak Sher also disapproved the contention that the CEC could determine the validity of President to Hold Another Office Act, 2004, and said the CEC was bound by the law as he found it.
Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan asked how could the CEC being a returning officer go against a law at the time of scrutiny and could say that the dual-office act was against the law.
Malik Qayyum said that all questions raised in the present petitions had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the 2002 Qazi Hussain Ahmed and 2005 Pakistan Lawyers Forum cases and, therefore, the issue was now a dead horse. However, he said, he would welcome any decision by the court on merit.
