Kayani’s extension challenged in court

PESHAWAR: The extension in tenure of Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani was challenged before the Peshawar High Court on Tuesday.

In this regard a writ petition was filed by Shahid Orakzai stating that the prime minister had no authority to give extension to the army chief.

The petitioner also requested for interim relief stating that to protect the discipline of the armed forces, this court may immediately request the president to require the prime minister, under Article 48, to reconsider his advice for extension in the tenure of the COAS.

The respondent in the petition is the federal government through Secretary Defence, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi.

The petitioner questioned: “Whether under the Quran and the Constitution, any soldier or commander is indispensable or irreplaceable in a continuing war?” He further questioned whether efficiency of any person holding a Constitution office justifies a rewarding extension in his service tenure?

Mr Orakzai questioned whether under the Constitution or any law relating to the members of the armed forces, the prime minister can extend the specified tenure of the COAS.

The petitioner stated that in an abrupt late night televised address on July 22 the prime minister announced an appeasing but illegal three-year extension in military service of the incumbent COAS commencing Nov 29, his tentative date of retirement.

The petitioner contended that under Article 243(3) of the Constitution, the president was bound to make military appointments on the advice of the prime minister but there was no room in that clause to double the tenure of any of the four officers.

He added that the power to “raise and maintain the military, naval and air force of Pakistan” as well as the power to “grant commission in such forces” were both “subject to law”.

This court may kindly inquire and determine as to under which provision of law relating to the armed forces, the said tenure has been doubled.

The petitioner stated that this decision of the prime minister was questioned on the ground that it could adversely affect the “maintenance of discipline” among the members of the armed forces as emphasised in Article 8.