KARACHI, Oct 20: The federal law minister’s contention that election of the new prime minister is likely to be delayed owing to the absence of the Senate has been questioned by a section of the legal fraternity which has termed it misleading, because the election of prime minister is the sole prerogative of the National Assembly and the Senate has nothing to do with it.

Law minister Khalid Ranjha has reportedly said that in the absence of the Senate, which was dissolved in Oct 1999 after General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the elected government, has been creating problems in the election of the new prime minister, due to which it may be delayed.

“The delay might be a ploy to subvert the will of the people and impose a fait accompli on the new National Assembly, as was done by earlier military interventionists”, said a former judge of the Sindh High Court, Rashid A. Rizvi, who had refused to take oath under the PCO.

Another lawyer, K.M Nadeem, pointed at the constitutional provision for the election of prime minister, in the which Senate has no role.

“The delay in the election of prime minister smacks of mala fide intentions and a part of the scheme to scuttle the mandate of the people in the manner the 8th amendment was manoeuvred through,” said Mr Nadeem.

With regard to the Legal Framework Order being part of the 1973 Constitution, he said that as per clause one of the LFO it came into effect at once and under it the elections have been held.

“After coming into existence the new National Assembly will have the right to debate and either retain all the provisions of the LFO, amend them or reject them, in the manner spelt out in Article 238 and 239 of the Constitution,” Mr Nadeem said.

He further said that the regime might be insist on retaining the amendments pertaining to 58(2) (b) and the National Security Council on the plea that it provided a safety valve against martial law. He disagreed with this point of view and said that martial law could be prevented through Article 6 of the Constitution which says: “Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason”.

Mr Nadeem regretted that this clause had never been invoked in Pakistan where frequent military interventions had taken place.

Farooq H. Naek, Ms Bhutto’s counsel, said that the PPP chairperson in her petition had challenged that part of the LFO through which clause (p) in Article 63 of the Constitution has been inserted

He said that the elections had been held under the LFO after an increase in the number of seats of the National and Provincial Assemblies, the lowering of the age of voters and the preparation of the electoral list. “If the new parliament refuses to validate any of these, the elections will become null and void.” He was also of the view that the Senate had nothing to do with the election of the prime minister.

Deputy convener of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s coordination committee, Aftab Shaikh, also shared the view that the Senate has nothing to do with the election of the prime minister. “If the house is complete it will elect the speaker, the deputy speaker and the leader of the house, and this exercise is not dependent on the formation of the Senate”.