ISLAMABAD, Sept 27: Aitzaz Ahsan and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appointed amici curiae by the Supreme Court in the petitions challenging President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s eligibility for the Oct 6 election, made their submissions on Thursday.
While Mr Aitzaz contended that the president was not qualified to stand in the election, Mr Pirzada defended his candidature.
As arguments from both sides are likely to close on Friday, the nine-judge bench is expected to hand down a short order the same day.
Acrimony prevailed for a while during the hearing when Advocate Akram Sheikh accused Mr Pirzada of favouring President Musharraf ‘because of friendship’.
At this, Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum interjected: “Barrister Ahsan has sided with the point of view of the petitioners, but nobody complained about it.”
In his arguments, Barrister Ahsan tried to establish that no army officer could run for an elective political office and that Article 63 (relating to disqualifications) did apply to the election of an army chief to the office of president. Therefore, a person in military uniform could not become president under Article 63 (1-o).
Under the now fully revived Constitution’s Article 63 (1-k), Mr Aitzaz said, no person could become president before the expiry of a two-year period after retirement.
Recalling the statement in the court by the president’s counsel that he would relinquish the office of the army chief if elected president for a second term, Barrister Ahsan said Gen Musharraf had implicitly conceded that he would not be qualified to hold the office of president in uniform with effect from the day he took oath for the next term.
PIRZADA’S DEFENCE: Mr Pirzada argued that the right to contest the election was a fundamental right of a person, but it was not a fundamental right to seek an order that a particular person should not be allowed to contest an election.
The petitions, he said, were of national importance but not of public interest.
He argued that the core issue before the court was whether Gen Musharraf could take part in the election.
Hafeez Pirzada said the president had been exempted from disqualification by the National Assembly through the 17th Amendment. Apparently no fundamental right of the petitioners had been violated that warranted an ‘extraordinary remedy’ while the entire onus to prove the case lay heavily on them, he argued.
He said the disqualification was not applicable to the president as the 17th Amendment and the dual office act were valid and Article 63 (1-d) had never been suspended.
Mr Pirzada said the worst democracy was better than the best martial law and, therefore, there was a need for a ‘smooth transition’ towards a democratic order.
“To take control of the country was easy for a military ruler, but the time to depart was very difficult because he changed everything into ash. Therefore, any transition from military to civilian rule was a difficult task.”
He said it was the constitutional duty of the national as well as the provincial assemblies to elect a new president and complete the process before Oct 15. Dissolution of provincial assemblies did not matter as the only requirement for the election of the president was that the National Assembly remained intact, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada argued.
