LAHORE: The Pakistan People’s Party says if the judiciary has to interpret the legislation done by the parliament then it (the judiciary) should simply be handed over the legislative function as well to avoid ‘complications’ in future.

“The president of the country has immunity under the Article 248 of the Constitution besides the contempt of court law no more existed. But if the judiciary has to interpret the laws enacted by the parliamentarians, then why they should bother to indulge in legislative exercise. It will be better to hand over this function of the parliament to the judiciary so that the latter could determine the role of the institutions and does not supersede the former,” President Asif Ali Zardari’s Coordinator in Punjab Navid Chaudhry told Dawn on Wednesday.

He said the decision of apex court’s three-member bench to disqualify Yousuf Raza Gilani was “political” and added: “Like in the past the history will prove that this decision was wrong,” he said. Chaudhry said the country was heading towards a ‘civil coup’. “After the verdict against Gilani it appears the time of military coups is over and we are heading towards a civil coup,” he said.

He said the verdict against Gilani was also creating doubts in the minds of the people as a case against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s son was being investigated. He said the PPP would continue its struggle to strengthen democracy.

PPP Punjab deputy parliamentary leader Shaukat Basra said the PPP had reservations over the verdict against Gilani.

“Shall we accept the three-member bench’s decision or that of seven-member bench in Gilani’s case? We also ask the chief justice why he did not take suo motu notice of Gilani remaining premier after April 26.”

Basra further said if Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan had not filed a petition in the apex court, the ‘illegal’ premier would have continued till completion of his term.

“Like Justice Nasim Hasan Shah (retired) in the Bhutto trial the present judges too will tell the nation one day as to why they gave wrong decision against Gilani,” he said, adding it was ‘murder of justice’ and the controversial decision had resurrected ‘doctrine of necessity’.