President's dual offices: Federation asks LHC to dismiss the petitions
The federal govt moved an application before the LHC to dismiss petitions against the dual offices of President Zardari.
The federal government moved an application before the Lahore High Court on Saturday requesting it to dismiss three identical petitions against the dual offices of President Asif Ali Zardari.
Government’s counsel, Advocate Tafazzul H Rizvi, stated that the court had asked the counsels for both parties to argue the case without first deciding if the petitions were maintainable or not. He submitted that without first deciding the issue of maintainability the hearing of the petitions could not continue.
The petitions in question were moved by the Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum, Eng Ghulam Jilani and Advocate Asif Mahmood Khan and are being heard by a full bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Iftikhar Hussain, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
Advocate A K Dogar, the counsel for the Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum, had stated in his petition that Asif Ali Zardari was simultaneously holding the offices of the PPP co-chairperson and the President of Pakistan in violation of the Article 41 (1) of the constitution.
He had mentioned that he had served a notice on Mr Zardari on September 25, 2009, asking him to quit the office of PPP’s co-chairperson, but it had gone unattended.
Mr Dogar had further argued that the President was the head of state and not the head of government, as such, he represented the unity of the republic and should remain impartial.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Mr Dogar had recalled that in Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs the President of Pakistan (1993), the apex court had held, “Now, the President as the symbol of the unity of the Federation is entitled to the highest respect and esteem by all the functionaries of the State.
But it is equally true that this respect and esteem will be forthcoming if he conducts himself with utmost impartiality and neutrality, that he keeps himself entirely aloof from party politics and does not give the impression to any one that he is siding with one faction or working against the other.”
He had told that the court that he had a collection of documents and press clippings which gave the impression that the Presidency was functioning as a head office for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). He had requested that Mr Zardari should be directed to surrender the PPP co-chairperson’s office.
In another such petition, Eng Ghulam Jilani had requested the court to summon President Zardari in his capacity of PPP’s co-chairperson.
The federal law ministry, in a written reply, had submitted that there was no constitutional bar on President Zardari to hold the PPP cochairperson’s office along with the President’s office, because the former was not a profitable office.
Earlier, President Zardari’s counsel, S M Masood, had stated that by filing such petitions, the petitioners were trying to divert public attention from real issues. He had said that one such petition had objected to the picture of Benazir Bhutto displayed in the presidency. No constitution barred a president from putting up his spouse’s picture in the presidency, Masood had argued.
Government’s counsel, Advocate Tafazzul H Rizvi, stated that the court had asked the counsels for both parties to argue the case without first deciding if the petitions were maintainable or not. He submitted that without first deciding the issue of maintainability the hearing of the petitions could not continue.
The petitions in question were moved by the Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum, Eng Ghulam Jilani and Advocate Asif Mahmood Khan and are being heard by a full bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Iftikhar Hussain, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
Advocate A K Dogar, the counsel for the Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum, had stated in his petition that Asif Ali Zardari was simultaneously holding the offices of the PPP co-chairperson and the President of Pakistan in violation of the Article 41 (1) of the constitution.
He had mentioned that he had served a notice on Mr Zardari on September 25, 2009, asking him to quit the office of PPP’s co-chairperson, but it had gone unattended.
Mr Dogar had further argued that the President was the head of state and not the head of government, as such, he represented the unity of the republic and should remain impartial.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Mr Dogar had recalled that in Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs the President of Pakistan (1993), the apex court had held, “Now, the President as the symbol of the unity of the Federation is entitled to the highest respect and esteem by all the functionaries of the State.
But it is equally true that this respect and esteem will be forthcoming if he conducts himself with utmost impartiality and neutrality, that he keeps himself entirely aloof from party politics and does not give the impression to any one that he is siding with one faction or working against the other.”
He had told that the court that he had a collection of documents and press clippings which gave the impression that the Presidency was functioning as a head office for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). He had requested that Mr Zardari should be directed to surrender the PPP co-chairperson’s office.
In another such petition, Eng Ghulam Jilani had requested the court to summon President Zardari in his capacity of PPP’s co-chairperson.
The federal law ministry, in a written reply, had submitted that there was no constitutional bar on President Zardari to hold the PPP cochairperson’s office along with the President’s office, because the former was not a profitable office.
Earlier, President Zardari’s counsel, S M Masood, had stated that by filing such petitions, the petitioners were trying to divert public attention from real issues. He had said that one such petition had objected to the picture of Benazir Bhutto displayed in the presidency. No constitution barred a president from putting up his spouse’s picture in the presidency, Masood had argued.