LAHORE, Pakistan, 12 June 2003 — A Pakistani court has declared there is nothing in the constitution to bar President Pervez Musharraf from simultaneously holding the posts of army chief and president, provoking uproar from lawyers yesterday.
In a judgement handed down late Tuesday, the Lahore High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate A. K. Dogar seeking court orders that Gen. Musharraf should shed his uniform. The petition stated that Musharraf had violated the constitution and should be tried for the alleged offense.
“We have not noted anything in the constitution, which would debar the president from remaining in uniform,” Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar Hussain and Justice Akhtar Shabbir said. The judges said Musharraf’s decision to hold on to both posts simultaneously was not creating “any hindrance in the smooth functioning of the government or other institutions in accordance with constitutional provisions and the law.”
Lawyers fumed in response. “It is the worst, blackest decision in the judicial history of Pakistan,” president of the Lahore High Court Bar Association Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari said.
Feisty opposition parties are in throes of a fierce campaign to force Musharraf quit his dual posts and seek fresh election as president. Opposition legislators are boycotting the current Parliamentary debate on Pakistan’s budget, tabled Saturday, by staging walkouts each day of the debate. But the pro-Musharraf ruling coalition has the 51 percent majority required to pass the budget. Last August, in the final days of his three year unilateral rule, he declared himself president and army chief until 2007.
He has categorically rejected demands to quit, insisting that Pakistan needs him in both posts because of its current instability. He has said he would give up his army uniform at an appropriate time, but refused to commit to any date. “None of the constitutional provisions is affected if the president remains in uniform. Therefore, the declaration by the president that he would take off his uniform on a date of his choice does not impinge upon any constitutional provision,” the judgment said.
