News
Friday, June 07, 2013
SC questions army chief’s powers to clamp emergency* Court says it will fulfil its responsibilities if need arises to implement Article 6 on Musharraf
Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned an army chief’s power to proclaim emergency.
The court also observed that if there were a need to invoke Article 6 of the constitution in Pervez Musharraf treason case then it would fulfil its responsibility. It also noted that under the law Ministry of Interior secretary has to lodge a complaint against the former military dictator under Article 6 of the constitution read with High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 for subverting or abrogating the constitution. A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, questioned the authority that empowers an army chief to proclaim emergency when he himself does not feature in the constitution.
Meanwhile, Musharraf’s counsel, Ahmed Raza Kasuri, argued that it will be a futile exercise as the acting law secretary, interior secretary and Attorney General Irfan Qadir had informed the court about the stance of the interim government and therefore the new government should be allowed to decide the matter.
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said, “Rest assure that there is no question of futility. If the interior secretary does not discharge his responsibility under the law then they (court) would fulfil their constitutional obligation, and we have to give judgement.” He observed that deterrence against military intervention would come with the implementation of Article 6 of the constitution.
Earlier, AK Dogar argued that the purpose of these petitions was to close the gate of military intervention for all times to come. He said there was similarity between the martial law of Yahya Khan and Musharraf and the 14-member bench had noted it that with a slight change, Musharraf’s martial law was a replay of March 25, 1969 act of Yahya Khan. He said that Musharraf’s counsels claim that whatever the former dictator did was for the welfare of the state.
Dogar contended that no one could presume that he was more patriotic than other citizens of the country, therefore Musharraf had no right to overthrow the system. He argued that in the past constitution was subverted many times but no action was taken against the usurpers and that was the reason that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was an elected leader, became a civilian martial law administrator. In the same breath he said that the PML-Q not only sided with Musharraf but said that if needed it would elect him in uniform 10 times. The case has been adjourned until June 24.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk