![]() Thursday, Nov 21, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
The Legal Framework Order (LFO), incorporating all the amendments, has been contested by several major parties. At the time of oath-taking on the inaugural day of the new Assembly, members of the alliance of religious parties and the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) insisted that they owe allegiance to the 1973 Constitution, as it existed before the October 12, 1999 military coup. The Opposition had also made it clear that they did not recognise Gen. Musharraf as the President and if he intended to stay on as the first citizen, he should not only resign as Army Chief but also stand for election before the Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. In his maiden press encounter, the Speaker maintained that he was also elected to the 1985 National Assembly (constituted after a party-less election under the military dictator, Zia-ul-Haq) which had taken oath under the 1973 Constitution that was amended in a similar fashion as was done by Gen. Musharraf. "Being the custodian of the House, the Speaker has a very pivotal role because this office is a very dignified and prestigious one which demands great responsibility,'' he said. At the same time, he said, since the provisions in the Constitution relating to defection had not been revived, anti-defection provisions would not be applicable to the members. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) said that the observations made by the Speaker on the LFO and the anti-defection provisions were devoid of facts, against the Constitution and the law and amounted to subverting the sovereignty of the Assembly. "That the Speaker chose to make this statement outside the House before the press and not inside before the members when he presided over its session shows that he knew he could not make such a claim inside the House. It shows him in poor light. "The correct legal and constitutional position is that the Supreme Court had in Zafar Ali Shah case allowed a three-year period to General Musharraf in which to hold elections. The Supreme Court also allowed the General to make the bare minimum amendments to the Constitution during this period provided they were not in conflict with its basic character." The PPP said that the three-year period given by the Supreme Court has expired on October 11 after which the continuation of military regime was unconstitutional and illegal. "It is most unfortunate that the new Speaker has chosen to make his position controversial from day one by taking a position on this vital issue contrary to the Constitution," the party said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|