LAHORE, April 10: Parties in the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal and Supreme Court Bar Association have refused to change their stance on the Legal Framework Order even after the judgment of the Lahore High Court on Thursday whereby it dismissed a petition challenging the LFO.

Leaders of the ARD component parties told Dawn that the LFO was not part of the Constitution and they would continue their struggle against the package of amendments which gave some vital powers previously exercised by the prime minister to the president, and gives a blanket cover to all acts made and decisions taken by Gen Musharraf during his three-year rule.

The LHC bench inter alia held that the Supreme Court had empowered President Gen Pervez Musharraf to amend the Constitution and, therefore, the exercise of the authority by him was not extra Constitutional.

It further said that the general had acted within the parameters set by the apex court in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case.

Commenting on the situation after the LHC judgment, PPP additional secretary-general, Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, said: “The position of the PPP on the LFO remains totally unchanged, notwithstanding the decision of any court. The party believes that the LFO is a proposal of amendments that has to be brought before the parliament prior to its becoming part of the Constitution.

“The only procedure for amending is laid down in Article 238 and 239 of the Constitution.”

Mr Rabbani said that he would also like to clarify a misrepresentation of the fact being made by the PML-Q and the prime minister that general elections were held under the LFO.

The apex court, the PPP leader said, had held that the elections were held under the General Elections Order 2002, not the LFO. Therefore it was incorrect to say that the opposition accepted the LFO by contesting the elections, the PPP leader said.

“The judges of the superior courts have seemingly accepted the LFO as those who should have retired on attaining the age of superannuation under the un-amended 1973 Constitution have not taken off their robes. Should not the political parties also accept the LFO, as done by the judiciary?” he was asked.

The PPP leader, himself a prominent lawyer, replied: “There can be an inference drawn to this effect.” He said that the opposition had taken a position that was in line with the Constitution and the past practices. “Whenever any transition has taken place, the indemnification of all acts has been sought from the parliament. An individual can’t be empowered to indemnify his own acts and orders.”

PML-N chairman Raja Zafarul Haq said that the court’s decision on the subject was the same which was being anticipated by political parties and the lawyers community. Therefore the lawyers had already decided that they would not take any matter of constitutional importance to any court, he added.

The PML-N leader, who was a minister in the late Gen Zia’s cabinet when a similar package of constitutional amendments was brought before the parliament and incorporated in the basic law only after it was debated and approved, said that the bicameral legislature alone could take a decision on the LFO.

He said that the government should bring the entire LFO to the parliament and then leave it to lawmakers which parts of it they would like to endorse or reject. Only then, he said, the parliament would be regarded as a sovereign body.

Supreme Court Bar president Hamid Khan said that the courts being a beneficiary of the LFO were not free and thus not competent to take any decision on its constitutional status.

“We reject the verdict. It’s not worth the paper it is written on.”

He said that it was wrong on the part of Advocate A. K. Dogar to have taken the matter to the court. All bar associations had decided not to take any constitutional issue to the superior courts as, in his words, they were not free.

Mr Khan said that he would raise the issue before the lawyers convention, scheduled for April 19, and would urge the participants not to take any constitutional matter to courts.

MMA information secretary Pir Ijaz Hashmi said that since the courts had taken oath under the LFO, they were not expected to give any verdict against it.

The religious parties’ alliance, he said, was of the opinion that judges should be administered fresh oath under the 1973 Constitution so that they could discharge their functions independently.

He said that the MMA would continue its struggle against the LFO and for the restoration of the un-amended 1973 Constitution.

The MMA, Mr Hashmi said, was opposed to anyone moving the superior courts on constitutional matters.