Published: July 22, 2009

ISLAMABAD - The Attorney General of Pakistan Sardar Latif Khosa Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court that the present government did not support the imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007.

A 14-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is hearing a petition filed by the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA) seeking the regularisation of two SHC judges Rashid Kalhoro and Zafar Sherwani. The same bench is also hearing Barrister Akram Sheikh’s petition against the PCO judges.

The bench asked the Attorney General whether or not the incumbent government supported the emergency rule imposed by the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf as well as the Supreme Court judgement in Tikka Iqbal case validating the imposition of emergency.

The Attorney General stated that Pakistan People’s Party had rendered great sacrifices for the rule of law in the country and lost a number of party workers in the movement for the restoration of the deposed judges. “We believe in democracy and strengthening of institutions and never supported repressive rules,” Khosa said, adding that the Parliament, President and Prime Minister had never supported the imposition of November 3 emergency rule. Regarding the judgement in Tikka Iqbal case, he said that Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to review its verdict in the said case.

Responding to his statement, the Chief Justice said that he saluted the Parliament for not validating the November 3 acts. He further observed that the February 18, 2008 elections were held under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan and that the incumbent Parliament, provincial assemblies, President and Prime Minister were elected under the Constitution.

Rasheed A Rizvi and Hamid Khan are pursuing the case on behalf of SHCBA. As the proceedings of the case resumed on Tuesday, Rizvi prayed the court for setting aside the Supreme Court judgement in Tikka Iqbal case, to which Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani asked what the link was between the two cases. Rizvi replied that it was the case which provided basis for denial to the confirmation of the services of the two Sindh High Court judges.

He further submitted that Chief Justice of Sindh High Court had recommended the said judges. He also said that views of the respective chief justice should be given preference in appointment of judges, as he better knew their judicial and extra-judicial conduct.

He further submitted that the Supreme Court judgement in Tikka Iqbal case had not spelled out the nature of disastrous consequences it had feared in case of non-imposition of emergency.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said that the emergency was imposed when the Supreme Court started hearing in the petition against the candidature of General (Retd) Musharraf for presidency and the rulers realised that they would not win the case. He further said that the situation during the last two months was more crucial than November 2007, as millions of persons were displaced due to the operation of Armed Forces against militants in Swat, but no emergency was imposed and all the state institution continued working in their constitutional spheres. He said that Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada used to threaten the court while arguing before the bench which was hearing petition against the candidature of Musharraf for presidency. At a point in the proceedings, the Chief Justice remarked that the people of Pakistan had suffered a lot and no more unconstitutional measures would be allowed, saying, “Enough is enough.”

Advocate Hamid Khan submitted before the court that the February 18 elections were constitutional, as they were held after the expiration of constitutional term of the assemblies under Article 224 of the Constitution. He said that they were focusing on the instruments introduced by the dictator from the imposition of emergency rule to December 15.

Justice Ramday said the term ‘emergency’ should not be used for the unconstitutional measures taken on and after November 3, 2007. “We should not defame the word emergency which is a sacred constitutional exercise,” he remarked. “It was not even the marshal law as Army was not involved in November 3 acts, rather it was General’s law,” he further observed.

Hamid Khan was still arguing when the case was adjourned for Wednesday (today) as the court time was over. The Chief Justice said that the bench wanted to conclude the case by Friday.