WASHINGTON, Feb 4: Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said on Sunday that she will return to Pakistan by the end of October or early November but did not announce a specific date.

Addressing a news conference in Washington, Ms Bhutto also said that the presidential elections cannot be held before December 2008 and “if they are held, they will be illegal.”

During an hour-long news conference, she was asked several times if she was returning home before the 2007 elections. “I am going back by the end of October or early November,” she said. “But I am not announcing a specific date yet.”

Asked to comment on President Pervez Musharraf’s determination to keep her and Mr Sharif out, she said: “That’s not President Musharraf’s decision. This has to be decided by the people of Pakistan.”

The PPP circles in Washington believe that if the government tries to prevent Ms Bhutto from returning home for the elections, it may become a major political issue both at home and abroad.

They say that it would be particularly difficult to defend such a decision in Washington where the victory of the Democratic Party in November’s midterm elections has added a new vigour to the demand for restoring democracy in countries like Pakistan.

Her other statement that there’s no legal provision for holding the presidential election before 2008 could add to the government’s problems. Several federal ministers have recently indicated that the president may seek re-election before a new parliament is elected.

“We do not understand when we read in the newspapers that the presidential election will be held before December 2008,” said Ms Bhutto.

“Nobody has the authority to do so, neither the government nor the federal cabinet. Even the election commission and the judiciary cannot hold presidential election before schedule.”

Ms Bhutto explained that the president first took oath of his office in 2000 when he replaced President Tarar. He was re-elected after the referendum for five years and again in 2002 for another five years. His term now expires in December 2008.

Commenting on a resolution adopted recently by the US House of Representatives which calls for stopping the US military supplies to Pakistan if it fails to control the Taliban; Ms Bhutto said: “We support meeting all core defence needs of our country. But we are against wasting the country’s resources on toothless equipment.”

She said one example of wasting the country’s money on “toothless equipment” was to buy “fangless F-16 fighter jets that we do not need.” The F-16s that the government is trying to purchase, “cannot even be called weapons,” she said.

“A country is strong if it has a strong economy. See, what happened to the Soviet Union. Despite all the weapons it had, it collapsed because it did not have a strong economy.”

The former prime minister said that another requirement in the US bill calling for accountability of the funds the United States has given to Pakistan for fighting terrorism made sense. “If we are asking for accountability the Americans also should. After all it is their money.”

She also supported linking the US assistance to the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. “It will be a good thinking. There should be some pressure on the government to ensure that the 2007 elections are fair and free.”

Ms Bhutto rejected the suggestion that her party was about to enter into an agreement with the government but when a reporter suggested that she declare categorically that she will make no deal with a dictator, she said: “I have given my statement but I cannot sign the agreement you prepare for me.”

Ms Bhutto also refused to name the person who, as a reporter had suggested, would be her “heir” in Pakistan during her absence. “I am not thinking of naming a ‘janasheen.’ We are struggling for democracy and we will continue this struggle.”

She said that she would accept any leader elected in the 2007 elections if third-party observers acknowledge that the elections were fair and free. “The government saying that the elections were fair and the opposition insisting that they were not; does not mean much. What neutral observers say does.”