LAHORE, May 5: The Lahore High Court office on Monday objected to the Pakistan Lawyers Forum’s petition seeking trial of President Gen Pervez Musharraf on treason charges, and refused to fix it for hearing for the second consecutive time on technical grounds.

The office informed the petitioner that under Article 248 of the 1973 Constitution, all the powers and actions of the president enjoyed a legal protection, and he could not be tried by a court of law on treason charges.

It also pointed out that the plea regarding holding of both offices of COAS and president by one person had already been decided by court on Nov 14, 2002, and the current petition was not maintainable.

The same objections had been raised by the office last week, but PLF President A. K. Dogar filed the petition afresh with a note that his petition was not barred under Article 248. He claimed that in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s case, it had been held that a person of the rank of president or prime minister could be tried in a court.

Following the LHC office’s second consecutive refusal to fix the case for hearing, the petitioner asked it to forward the petition to court which, according to him, was the only authorized forum to decide this objection. “Please do not assume the role of a judge since you do not have the power of high court, and place the matter in a court,” he said in the fresh filing.

The petition was based on the recent press statement of Gen Musharraf saying he would continue to hold both the offices simultaneously to manage the state affairs effectively. It was pleaded that the Supreme Court in judgments delivered in the cases of Zafar Ali Shah and Wasim Sajjad had clearly laid down that Gen Musharraf would have to relinquish the office of COAS after handing over the power to the civilians within three years (commencing from Oct 12, 1999).

However, the power was yet to be transferred despite the holding of elections. Rather it was still lying with Gen Musharraf, who in the language of Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution, was making show of force, the petitioner claimed. He requested court to issue directions to the federal government in form of ‘mandamus’ for his trial on treason charges.