KARACHI, Dec 20: Lawyers’ representatives from across the country will meet here on Dec 25 to formulate a plan of action against the “unconstitutional” amendments foisted on the basic law by the chief executive through the Legal Framework Order.

The convention, which will coincide with a seminar on the LFO, is being hosted by the Sindh Bar Council in a hotel in pursuance of a decision taken by it early in November. Former chief justice of Pakistan Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, who was relieved in January 2000 following his refusal to take oath under the provisional constitution order of October 1999, will preside over the midday session of the seminar, and the evening and morning sessions will be held under the chairmanship of, respectively, Supreme Court Bar Association President and Pakistan Bar Council member Hamid Khan and Sindh Bar Council Vice-Chairman Abdul Sattar Kazi.

At a press conference at the council’s office here on Friday afternoon, Mr Kazi, SBC seminar committee chairman, Abrar Hasan and council members Asif Ali Soomro and Ismail Memon said the legal fraternity could not remain a silent spectator to the mutilation of the Constitution, that too by a single individual and in violation of its amendment provisions. The amendments grossly undermined the supremacy of parliament, which was the cornerstone of the country’s constitutional framework, the added.

In response to a suggestion by Advocate Bahadar Ali Naqvi, who was also present at the press conference, the SBC presidium said the issue of administration of a new oath to the judges of superior courts to free them from any obligation under the PCO and enhancement of their retirement age were very much on the convention’s agenda.

The seminar will, in particular, discuss the following questions:

1. Whether the Constitution gave any authority to the Supreme Court to authorize an individual to carry out amendments to the Constitution?

2. Assuming that the ruling in the Zafar Ali Shah was correct and was justified under “the law of necessity,” whether the impugned amendments could be carried out within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in that case?

3. What is the status of the LFO? Is it merely a procedure prescribed to overcome the difficulties in a smooth transition to democracy or is it a full- fledged amendment?

4. Whether the parliament should treat the LFO as a part of the Constitution, which can be amended only in the mode and manner prescribed by the Constitution itself or it be treated merely as a “roadmap” for the period of transition subsequently to be incorporated in the Constitution in accordance with the prescribed procedure?

5. Whether the SCBA stance on the partiality and partisanship of the judiciary is justified?