ISLAMABAD, April 29: If the bill containing non-contentious portions of the LFO was presented before parliament for validation, the stated policy of the government that LFO was part of the Constitution and needed no parliamentary assent will be defeated.

Independent legal experts believe that if the opposition parties managed to persuade the government to bring only the non-controversial parts of the LFO before parliament for approval, it would demolish the whole edifice raised on the argument that the president had amended the Constitution under his legislative powers and it had been revived as amended.

The government’s legal experts, however, have different point of view. They contend that if some portions of the LFO were “repealed” by parliament, it would be done on the assumption that the LFO had become part of the Constitution, and now parliament, by exercising its right under Article 239, was repealing some of its parts.

The government has been consistently stating that the LFO is a part of the Constitution and does not need any adoption or validation (by parliament) and if the opposition has any objection, it should muster a two-third majority and repeal that portion.

Senior Advocate Akram Shaikh, a former president of Supreme Court Bar Association, said that government knew it that its position regarding the revival of the Constitution, inclusive of the LFO, was not correct.

“They (the government), therefore, have rightly conceded to the strategy of negotiating with the opposition to work out a consensus formula,” he said, adding that the strategy was consistent with the earlier post-takeover restoration of the Constitution.

Hamid Khan, the bar’s prominent leader, said that trap “is being set for the opposition parties.”

He said one way to come out of the present impasse was that the LFO should be tabled before the assembly as a proposed constitutional amendment bill, with parliament retaining some of its parts and rejecting the remaining portions. This would establish parliament’s right to amend the Constitution, and also establish that no individual had the power to amend the Constitution.

He said the second solution was that some new bill be moved, but it must be spelled out clearly in the preamble that the LFO was not part of the Constitution. He said that unless it was not clearly spelled, the opposition would be negating its own stance on the LFO.

A member of the government’s legal team, on condition of anonymity, said that it had been the position of the government that if parliament wanted to change some sections of the LFO, it could resort to Article 239 of the Constitution.