Election Commission can’t change law: SC

* Bench declines plea to make CEC party in the petition
* SC ‘understands’ 2-offices law unconstitutional
* Court chides politicians for ambiguities in 2-offices law

By Irfan Ghauri

ISLAMABAD: Justice Sardar Raza Khan of the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday that the Election Commission (EC) does not have the power to change basic rules, let alone provisions of the Constitution.

The judge was responding to the plea of Hamid Khan, counsel for Tehrik-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan, asking that the court strike down recent amendments to the presidential election rules made by the EC. A nine-member bench headed by Justice Rana Bhagwandas is hearing petitions challenging President’s General Pervez Musharraf’s two offices.

Hamid Khan said the EC had amended the Presidential Rules 1988 with the president’s consent so the disqualification clauses laid down in Article 63 didn’t apply to Gen Musharraf.

Justice Nawaz Abbasi observed that the chief election commissioner (CEC) hadn’t been made a respondent in the petition. Khan said that in his application he had asked that the CEC be made a party in the main petition.

Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokar remarked that if the court decided that Article 43 had become operative, then this EC notification would have no effect, but if the decision was otherwise, the issue should be taken up.

Plea declined: According to APP, the bench did not accept the plea that the CEC be made a party in the petition.

Two-offices law unconstitutional: Hamid Khan contended that the two-offices law was discriminatory as it exempted only the current president from the rules of disqualification.

Justice Falak Sher said, “You may not call it discriminatory. If your contention is that it is unconstitutional, it will be understandable.”

“That’s right. It violates Article 25 of the Constitution.”

Justice Sher remarked, “At that time (when the law was made) you agreed and accepted it but later you say it is wrong.”

Ambiguity about two-offices law: Hamid Khan argued that the law allowing the president to hold two offices did not clearly mention whether it was applicable for one term or more.

Justice Khan said parliamentarians should have cleared this up when passing the law. “When these laws were being made, did they (parliamentarians) not go through it?”

Hamid Khan also argued that Gen Musharraf had been made president through a vote of confidence, when this method was valid only for the prime minister. Justice Javed Iqbal remarked, “So you (the petitioners) had yourself chosen an extra-constitutional method to elect the president.”

Khan said Gen Musharraf had also violated his military oath by taking part in politics.

Justice Iqbal questioned, “Were the (opposition) parties not in the knowledge of this oath?”

Khan replied, “Politicians cannot be absolved.”

Justice Nawaz Abbasi then asked which forum should take notice if members of the armed forces breach their oath. Khan replied that head of the army should take notice, but a court should take action if the army chief himself broke his oath. The hearing continues today.






source:DT