KARACHI, Aug 29: A full bench of the Sindh High Court adjourned on Thursday the hearing of a constitutional petition filed by Ms Benazir Bhutto till Sept 11.

The full bench comprising Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Musheer Alam, adjourned the petition on the request of PPP chairperson’s attorney.

The former prime minister has challenged the government measures to keep her out of political dispensation and electoral process.

The bench, however, did not accede to Ms Bhutto’s attorney for staying scrutiny of her nomination papers until her petition was decided.

The full bench was constituted on the request of the government on the premise that in the matter vires of two laws and a constitutional amendment had been questioned.

AG Punjab Maqbool Elahi Malik had filed the application on behalf of the federation, in which he had prayed for a larger bench on the premise that questions of territorial jurisdiction, locus standi, and the entitlement of the petitioner to relief arise.

When the matter came up for hearing, Farooq H. Naek requested for adjournment because the leading counsel, Barrister Kamal Azfar had fallen sick and was not in a position to argue.

Attorney General for Pakistan Barrister Makhdoom Ali Khan did not oppose the adjournment, but he did not agree to the date sought by Ms Bhutto’s counsel because of his commitment abroad. The AGP would not be in the country on Sept 5 as he would be leaving for abroad to represent Pakistan in an international moot.

Farooq H. Naek said even in the absence of AGP, the federation can be represented as the counsel for federation Maqbool Illahi Malik, any DAG and Prosecutor NAB would be present.

He said that once an adjournment has been sought, the urgency has been lost. If it is resumed on 5th, the time for scrutiny would expire.

The bench observed that the entire constitutional package has been challenged before Lahore High Court and it would not be appropriate for this bench to hear the matter as there could be two conflicting judgments.

Farook Naek submitted that the petitioner has also challenged NAB Ordinance’s 31-A which is not the subject matter of the petition referred to by the bench. He contended that constitutional amendments do not cover this specifically and only wording “conviction by a competent court” is given. He also referred to objections raised, vis-a-vis amendments in article 63 (1) (p) of the constitution.

As there was dispute over timing, the AGP suggested Sept 11 as next date of hearing, and the court directed the counsel of both the sides to reassemble after tea break.

When they met, the bench in the chamber of the CJ, Sept 11 was finally fixed for the hearing of the petition by the same bench.

In the amended petition, Ms Bhutto has termed the Legal Framework Order as illegal and contended that amendments, especially in Article 63 (p) of the constitution, were mala fide and intended to keep the petitioner out of political dispensation.

The former prime minister has prayed for enforcement of the right to contest elections to NA-207 and has challenged government’s measure to keep her out of political and electoral process.

These amendments were termed illegal and mala fide and outside the ambit of powers conferred by the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah’s case.

The exercise is aimed at seeking an order from the court, allowing the petitioner to contest elections and that her nomination papers should not be rejected until the disposal of this petition.

It should be left to the voters once again to decide who should represent them.