LAHORE, June 11: The Pakistan Lawyers Forum on Wednesday asked the Lahore High Court to restrain Gen Pervez Musharraf from holding the offices of president and COAS till the disposal of its petition against the simultaneous occupation of these offices by one person.

A division bench of the Lahore High Court is likely to take up this petition on Thursday (today). The petitioner has also asked the court to inquire of Gen Musharraf as to what is the exact authority under which he assumed the president’s office.

The PLF president, A.K. Dogar, filed this petition following the rejection of his petition for Gen Musharraf’s trial on charges of committing high treason in saying that he would hold both the offices till a date of his own choice.

An urgent application was moved in the court on Wednesday, saying that the simultaneous occupation of two offices by the respondent was in sheer violation of the 1973 constitution and likely to destroy the political system. Therefore, the general should be restrained from acting against the Constitution till the disposal of the petition.

The petition is based on the argument that even if the Legal Framework Order (LFO) is assumed to be a part of the 1973 constitution, Gen Musharraf cannot hold the offices of president and COAS simultaneously.

According to the petitioner, a constitutional court under Article 199 could direct the president to disclose the source of his authority. He further argued that under Article 243 of the 1973 constitution, the federal government had the control and command of armed forces. In the current democratic set up, prime minister was the supreme commander. “A government elected under the Constitution can perform its functions and ensure observance of the constitutional provisions only by making the civil power superior to and not subordinate to the armed forces during peace as well as war,” he quoted the Supreme Court as saying in the Sheikh Liaqat Hussain case.

Mr Dogar further observed in the petition that Article 41(7) empowered Gen Musharraf to hold the office of president for five years without election. This article was clearly in conflict with Article 2-A of the Constitution, which declared Holy Quran and Sunnat the prime sources of legislation and “says loud and clear that power of state can be exercised only through chosen representatives of the people. No one in the country can exercise authority unless he is an elected representative.”

According to the petitioner, the SC had ruled in the Al Jehad case that whenever there was a conflict in two provisions of the Constitution, one of which is incorporated through the consensus of legislators and the other introduced by a dictator, the former would prevail. In the current situation, Article 2-A, incorporated in the constitution during March 1985, would have overriding powers when compared with Article 41(7), which was introduced through the LFO.

Lastly, with regard to his locus standi, the petitioner claimed that the SC had observed in the Benazir Bhutto case that any person could activate a court for the enforcement of fundamental rights of a class that itself was unable to seek relief for various reasons.