ISLAMABAD, May 11: The government has not given any mandate to the committee assigned for holding negotiations with the opposition parties on the LFO to make concessions.

An official, who is considered an authority on constitutional issues, told Dawn that very wild kind of speculations being made by newspapers on contentious portions of the LFO (Legal Framework Order) were giving an impression that agreement on some points had already been reached.

Those who were trying to read too much into the discussions by a committee assigned to do “clause by clause reading” of the contentious issue, are at a mistake, he added.

“The committee will present its recommendation to the Prime Minister, who after applying his mind, will seek approval of the President on the issue. After the approval, the government will make its stance clear,” said the official, who is privy to all constitutional developments made in last three years.

The President, he said, had made it clear on more than one occasion that he would lay down the uniform, but would not give a date. So far there is no flexibility on this point.

About Article 58(2)(B), which empowers the President to dismiss a government, the official said the government was of the consistent view that to avoid recurrence of the Martial Law, its presence was necessary.

He said the Supreme Court in a number of dissolution of assembly cases, had approved Article 58(2)(B), and a bench headed by then chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah had dubbed it “safety valve”.

In its latest judgment, validating the military takeover, the apex court had said that if Article 58 (2)(B) had been in place, the takeover could have been avoided.

Commenting on a proposal that the President should have power to dissolve the government instead of the National Assembly, the official said it was one of the proposals floated by the National Reconstruction Bureau to make changes in the Constitution.

But the proposal was dropped after receiving an overwhelming response. It was feared that if the President was given these powers, Pakistan would revert to pre-1956 situation, when the governor-general enjoyed the same kind of powers and used them frequently.

About President’s discretionary powers, the official said there was no question of any flexibility with regard to his powers for making appointments in the army. But in regard to his powers about the appointment of governors and heads of a number of other bodies, the president was flexible.

About the retirement age of judges, the source said that nothing could be said certainly. “To the best of my knowledge, the Prime Minister and President are keen to defend extension in the retirement age of judges,” he said.