ISLAMABAD, Nov 21: After the federal government, former army chief Gen (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg, who was held guilty by the Supreme Court for his role in ‘polluting’ the 1990 general elections while deciding the Asghar Khan case, has also challenged the verdict.

On Oct 19, the apex court had ordered the federal government to initiate necessary action against Gen Beg and former ISI director general Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani for their role in dishing out Rs140 million to a particular group of politicians to prevent Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from winning the elections in 1990.

The government’s petition filed on Nov 17 only sought review of observations and remarks made by the court about the president. The petition was returned by the court on technical grounds, but was filed again on Monday seeking two weeks’ time to file proper papers. The court office accepted the request.

Gen Beg’s review petition was moved by Advocate Ali Zafar, instead of Mohammad Akram Sheikh who had earlier defended the former army chief in the case.

It argued that the findings and observations made against the petitioner by the court were incorrect and as a result his fundamental right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 10A of the Constitution and right to due process of law had been infringed.

Referring to the order that no officer should follow unlawful orders, the petitioner said if the proposition was allowed to remain worded in such a vague manner it would lead to chaos in the armed forces and bureaucracy.

“The government will not be able to run and there will be anarchy,” the petition said, adding that an army officer was bound to obey the orders of his superior and must act on the assumption that the command by his senior was lawful even at the risk of his life.

“It is not possible for an army officer to start asking his superior to explain the legality of the command.”

The petition said the principle of refusing to obey superior’s order was limited only to extreme cases where an instruction was patently and manifestly unlawful on the face of record and perpetuated a criminal offence or an offence against humanity.

As held by the court itself, it contended, there was no express prohibition in the Constitution or in the president’s oath in respect of his involvement in politics and in order to come to a conclusion that the president could not maintain a political cell.

The court has to carry out an elaborate interpretation of the constitutional provision and rely on conventions and jurisprudence, it emphasised.

“Accordingly it is only after this verdict, future political role of the president has been defined as prior to this judgment it will be unreasonable to expect anyone let alone the army chief to question the president’s orders or his political role,” the petition said.

It said that even the July 31, 2009, Sindh High Court Bar Association’s case in which it was held that taking oath under the PCO was unlawful only applied to future and did not affect the judges who had taken oath before this case.

It contended that only the allegation against the petitioner was contained in three lines of the affidavit filed by Gen Durrani who said he had received instructions from Gen Beg to provide logistic support for disbursement of the funds.

Although the statement of Gen Durrani was vehemently denied by Gen Beg, the Supreme Court believed the version of Durrani as gospel truth and rejected the affidavit of Gen Beg, the petition argued.

It said only late president Ghulam Ishaq Khan could have confirmed the actual facts. In the absence of such confirmation or any other documentary proof, the court should not have given any finding against Gen Beg.

The petition said both Gen Durrani and Yunus Habib, head of the now defunct Mehran Bank who had generated funds, only made verbal allegations without any documentary proof.