LAHORE, Oct 14: President Gen Pervez Musharraf has violated the three-year timeframe given to him by the Supreme Court despite holding the general elections before Oct 12.
Pakistan Lawyers Forum counsel A.K. Dogar made the submission when Justice Muhammad Saeed Akhtar of the Lahore High Court observed that the general elections had been held before the expiry of the three-year period.
Justice Akhtar is hearing the amended petition challenging the validity of the Legal Framework Order and declaring the Musharraf government unlawful for violating the three-year timeframe given by the Supreme Court for holding the general elections and transfer of power to the civilians.
Advocate Dogar submitted that the general elections were void because of not having been held within the timeframe given by the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah case which required not only holding of elections but also the transfer of power to the civilians within three years of the military takeover of Oct 12, 1999.
He submitted that all the political parties had alleged rigging in the elections except the king’s party implying that the elections were not fair.
The government had held only the general elections before Oct 12 but the power was yet to be transferred.
He pointed out that the late Gen Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan had also held fair general elections but later refused to transfer power to the political party winning the majority of seats in the National Assembly. The conflict resulted in the dismemberment of the country.
He submitted that the 1973 Constitution and not the Provisional Constitution Order issued by Gen Pervez Musharraf was still the supreme law of the land because the Supreme Court had validated only the military takeover on Oct 12, 1999, and not the PCO.
Only parts of the 1973 Constitution had been held in abeyance under the PCO. Moreover, the Supreme Court did not allow Musharraf to make permanent amendments in the 1973 Constitution. He was allowed to make only temporary amendments fulfilling the requirements of the law of necessity during the three-year transitory period which had expired on October 12 this year.
When Deputy Attorney-General Sher Zaman Khan questioned his locus standi to file the petition on the ground that he was not an aggrieved person, Justice Akhtar observed: “even you may be an aggrieved person when the Constitution is amended.”
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Qazi Husain Ahmed’s writ petition against the holding of referendum for the election of Gen Musharraf as president, the counsel submitted that the judgment did not upset the SC decision in Zafar Ali Shah case because it had been taken by the full bench comprising 12 judges.
The bench which heard Qazi’s petition was smaller. The decision taken by a smaller bench could not affect the decision taken by a larger bench.
He submitted that it had also been pointed out in the Supreme Court judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case that the 1973 Constitution was still the supreme law of the land and the courts had been established and were functioning under it.
The judges taking oath under the PCO had also affirmed that the 1973 Constitution was the supreme law. The creation of the National Security Council with four military men was in violation of the Supreme Court verdict in respect of transfer of power to civilians.
He prayed that the high court should tell those running the government that they were acting in violation of the Supreme Court judgment.
The hearing of the case will continue on Tuesday (today).