ISLAMABAD, Nov 21: The Legal Frame Work Order (LFO) promulgated by the Musharraf government, came under fire in the National Assembly immediately after day’s proceedings for the ascertainment of the Leader of the House began on Thursday.

After some spirited speeches and an uproar by a number of members, Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain reserved his ruling on the issue without saying that when he would announce it.

All speakers opposed the LFO and no one supported it. When the speaker invited Sardar Farooq Leghari to speak on the issue, he declined to take part in the debate.

Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, parliamentary leader of the PML-Q, witnessing a lot of heated arguments and uproar, conceded that he had signed a six-point declaration with three other parliamentary parties on the LFO and assured that the party stood by it. He said there should be a full-fledged debate on the issue.

Taking part in the debate, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, MMA’s candidate for Leader of the House post, said no individual could be empowered to amend the Constitution even by the supreme court.

He said: “I feel ashamed when I see a person who has been elected by the people supporting laws which have been framed by an individual.”

Maulana Fazl said the speaker, after giving press statement in favour of the LFO, had become controversial. He said keeping some parts of the Constitution suspended pointed to the fact that the government wanted to facilitate its favourites to purchase loyalties of members from other parties.

Liaquat Baloch of MMA, referred to a statement attributed to the speaker giving an impression that the LFO had genuinely and legally become part of the Constitution.

He told the speaker that his remarks had breached the privilege of this House which would be a hurdle in smooth running of the affairs.

Baloch said that any amendment could be brought about by two-thirds majority of both the houses.

The members of this House, he added, had taken oath to protect and defend the Constitution of 1973 and did not admit any other piece of law framed by an individual as its part.

He asked the speaker to keep the tradition of his office to establish the supremacy of the House and shun defending the acts of the military regime.

Parliamentary leader of People’s Party Parliamentarians, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, said the issue of LFO was very important and it should be debated in the House as all of us are committed under the oath to protect the 1973 Constitution.

He said we are at a critical juncture of transition from military to civilian rule and we must take care not to commit any mistake which may affect the transition for which the coming generation would not forgive us.

The PML-N parliamentary leader, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, said the speaker had hurt his status as the custodian of the House which was even supreme than the supreme court.

He recalled that all acts of Gen Yahya Khan were presented in the assembly which scrutinised and rejected some of them and approved others. Similar was the case of the RCO under which Gen Zia had restored democracy which was debated by the House for 38 days after which the controversial 8th Amendment was approved.

Hashmi said the speaker had lost the respect of the House by his comment on the LFO and indulging in controversial issue which did not add to the respect of the House.

Ijazul Haq of PML-Z said the statement of the speaker had disappointed the House, as being its custodian, he was the representative of 140 million people.

He said the acts of all former military dictators including Ayub Khan, Gen Yahya Khan and Gen Zia had been placed before parliaments for scrutiny and the LFO ought to be presented in the assembly.

Maulana Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tehrik said there were two views on the mandate given by the supreme court to Gen Musharraf. One said the supreme court did not have the authority to amend the Constitution itself, then how could it empower an individual to make amendments.

The other view, he said, was that the supreme court was the only supreme body in absence of the assembly which could take decision for the emergency period which it did.

He, however, maintained that the supreme court’s verdict was to facilitate the government in its day-to-day working and not to amend the Constitution.