ISLAMABAD, Nov 1: Justice Javed Iqbal, heading an 11-member Supreme Court bench hearing petitions challenging Gen Pervez Musharraf’s candidature for the office of president, observed on Thursday that threats of martial law or emergency would not intimidate the court.

“Statements about emergency or martial law by the cabinet ministers should not be taken seriously and no section should think it has taken the Supreme Court hostage,” Justice Iqbal said when the attention of the bench was drawn to reported statements of federal ministers Sher Afgan and Sheikh Rashid that an adverse decision by the court could result in imposition of martial law or proclamation of emergency.

Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum had said that President Musharraf would continue to hold the post of army chief if he was blocked from taking oath of the president’s office for another term.

The court’s judgment, Justice Iqbal asserted, would be in accordance with the Constitution.

At the fag end of Thursday’s proceedings, Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, the counsel for Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed, invited the court’s attention to the statements of the cabinet ministers and said that the change in government’s strategy to prolong the hearing indicated something wrong.

Justice Iqbal said the court was not bound by the government’s strategy, adding that it seemed that the government was competing with Mr Ahsan by taking as much time as he had taken.

He also recalled press statements of Mr Ahsan that he hoped that the verdict would reflect aspirations of the people. He asked the counsel not to speak every now and then of the doctrine of necessity which he had earlier said had been buried forever.

“We have buried the doctrine of necessity but its soul still haunts us,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said.

The court declared that it would continue the hearing during the week beginning on Nov 12 because the attorney-general would continue his arguments on Friday and federal government’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad and President Musharraf’s counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada would need one day each to complete their arguments.

Barrister Ahsan and A. K. Dogar also wanted the right of reply to points raised by the respondents. Since the bench will not be available next week due to the wedding of a son of Justice Raja Fayyaz in Quetta, the bench will resume the hearing on Nov 12.

“We wished to wind up the hearing by Thursday but the proceeding is lingering on due to lengthy arguments of the lawyers,” Justice Iqbal said.

Outside the courtroom, the attorney-general told reporters that it was not possible for the government side to complete the arguments by Thursday.

About the Nov 15 deadline, he said the cut-off date was not binding on President Musharraf but on the National Assembly because its tenure would end that day.

He said that if the court failed to come out with any decision by Nov 15, the president would continue to hold the office of president as well as of the army chief. In case of an adverse decision blocking the president’s way to take oath of the office for another term, the attorney-general said, Gen Musharraf would continue as army chief; otherwise he would doff his uniform.

In his arguments before the bench, Mr Qayyum said the bar under Article 41(6) (validity of president’s election cannot be called in question) was absolute and all pervasive, which took away the jurisdiction of the court or any other authority to intervene.

Since no candidate had been disenfranchised in the Oct 6 presidential election, the jurisdiction even if available to the court should not be exercised.

Referring to the 2002 Qazi Hussain Ahmed case and the 2005 Pakistan Lawyers Forum case against the 17th Constitutional Amendment, the attorney-general said that even if these judgments were overruled by the court while deciding the instant cases, it would have prospective applicability and, therefore, could not affect the order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner, accepting the candidature of President Musharraf.

He said it would be against the interest of the nation that the election matter was dealt with by the court because the Chief Election Commissioner, who was a retired judge, had absolute powers to deal with it.