LAHORE, Sept 22: Gen Pervez Musharraf needs no ratification by parliament of his election as president by virtue of the April 30 referendum nor is he required to seek a fresh election to retain himself as the head of state for the next five years, Law Minister Dr Khalid Ranjha said here on Sunday.

Talking to Dawn, he said if new parliament was of the view that it could not work with Gen Musharraf, it would be free to oust him through impeachment, the procedure for which had been laid down in the Constitution.

The minister said that the election of the president through the referendum had been made part of the Legal Framework Order and incorporated in the 1973 Constitution, which was now in abeyance. The day the Constitution was revived, the LFO would be part of it, which would mean that the referendum would enjoy the constitutional cover.

In such a situation, he said, the election of Gen Musharraf as president would be fait accompli for new parliament and the general would be under no obligation to seek a fresh election.

Asked what would new parliament have to do to oust the president if it was of the opinion that it could not co-exist with him, the minister said impeachment was the only method available to legislators.

Under the 1973 Constitution, the president may be impeached by a two-thirds majority of the bicameral legislature.

Dr Ranjha dismissed opposition’s allegations that the government was involved in pre-poll rigging or that free and fair elections would not be possible under the present setup.

He said prime minister or ministers of an elected government were always free to take part in the elections and use the state resources even during electioneering. This had been the practice during the so-called democratic periods.

But, he argued, the Musharraf government was extra-cautious about ensuring the fairness and impartiality of the elections and it was for this reason that the president had told the ministers and Nazimeen desirous of taking part in the electoral process to resign from their offices first.

It was strange that instead of appreciating this fact, opponents were trying to malign the government to make the election results controversial, he said. As for allegations that development schemes were being announced by the state functionaries to bring in political benefits to the ‘king’s party’ candidates in their constituencies, Dr Ranjha said nothing could be more absurd.

Development schemes were now planned and implemented by the local government institutions and Nazimeen and councillors were taking all decisions in this respect.

When it was pointed out that some Nazimeen were involved in electioneering, which they were not supposed to do, the law minister said there was no bar on a Nazim to engage himself in such an activity provided he did not use the state resources.

He said if the relative of a Nazim was contesting the elections, the former could lend a helping hand by seeking popular support for him/her. But, he clarified, he was not allowed to use the official transport or other resources.