KARACHI, Sept 18: Hearing of the petition of Benazir Bhutto, challenging recent amendments to the Constitution and NAB laws was adjourned here on Wednesday to Oct 2.

The bench comprised the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Musheer Alam.

Continuing his arguments, Barrister Kamal Azfar, the counsel for Ms Bhutto, submitted that the amendments were not in conformity with the objectives the Chief Executive had outlined in his address to the nation after the military takeover.

Mr Azfar stated that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the Zafar Ali Shah case, it was to be seen whether the constitutional amendments were made to achieve the objectives outlined by the CE.

Mr Azfar’s arguments focused on the “colourable legislation” aimed at eliminating Ms Bhutto from the election process and political dispensation.

He argued that amendments to Article 63 were a “colourable” exercise and added that Section 31-A was a deviation from the principle of Natural Justice, i.e. opportunity of being heard, and there was a deviation from Constitutional Amendment Procedure. He said the impugned legislation was not warranted.

When the counsel contended that the petitioner had left the country with the court’s permission, the CJ observed that the permission had been granted in one case.

Farooq H. Naek, attorney for petitioner, stated that the permission was in all the three cases.

The bench advised the counsel to respond to the objections pertaining to the approbation and reprobation of the Legal Framework Order, raised by the Attorney-General.

Responding to the query, Mr Azfar referred to a recent judgment in a suit and said that the choice of the forum rested with the petitioner.

The petitioner, he submitted, was seeking remedy against the decisions by returning officers belonging to Sindh.

Mr Azfar said that parliament had powers to legislate.