No remorse on Oath under PCO: Ramday
By Saad Saud

ISLAMABAD—Supreme Court (SC) has said the country has been running under 1973 constitution as the constitution has not been abrogated on any reason. “The fact is this the country has been running under 1973 constitution as the constitution has not been abrogated for any reason. This has to be decided if the first term of the president Musharraf be declared the balance period of Rafiq Tarar term” these remarks were given by 11-member larger bench of SC during hearing of identical constitutional petitions challenging the acceptance of general Musharraf nomination papers for presidential elections.
Giving the arguments, Aitzaz Ahsan counsel for presidential candidate Justice (Retd) Wajih Ud Din said President Musharraf had taken oath as president for the first time on June, 21, 2001 when he removed president Tarar. For the second term he took the oath on November, 16, 2002. Justice Nawaz Abbasi raised the question president Musharraf first oath was taken under the constitution adding whether it would be considered oath for the balance period of president Rafiq Tarar term. Aitzaz submitted if we express suspicion the first oath was constitutional or other wise then “ I will have to bring under discussion the matter of oath taking of judges of superior court under PCO which I don’t want to do so. Justice Ramday remarked it was all jugglery of words whatever name it is given. The country continued to run under 1973 constitution, as the constitution was never abrogated at any stage. I am not ashamed of taking oath under PCO as I had to take no other oath after this”, he further remarked.
Aitzaz said President Musharraf had completed two terms and he had taken the oaths on both of the occasions under the constitution. If he takes oath for the third term it will be violative of article 44 of the constitution. Justice Abbasi remarked it has to be decided now if the first term of the president Musharraf will be considered balance period of President Tarar term.
Aitzaz pleaded how could it be possible that provision of ineligibility are applicable to member of assembly and not to the president. If a person who is defaulter in loans payment and is declared disqualified for membership of any assembly for this reason can be declared eligible for the presidential elections, he submitted.
Justice Abbasi remarked those who are defaulters in repayment of loans are elected as members of assembly here. He questioned where the issue of ineligibility stands after promulgation of national reconciliation ordinance. Aitzaz said he was not defending it but this ordinance was applicable to those who were not convicted or who had not been awarded punishment in absentia as SC had maintained no one could be awarded punishment in absentia.
Aitzaz further submitted government was of view that article 63 of the constitution was not applicable to the president but we say it is applicable to him. Justice Javed Iqbal observed “ we have not to find flaws of article 62 or 63 but we have to see what is the interpretation of the original article which is in place. Aitzaz argued president Musharraf was given exception for one year to stay in uniform and this had expired on December, 31, 2004.