The Attorney General today concluded his submissions saying that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Fundamental Rights petitions against the dissolution of Parliament.
He said the powers of the President were clear and unambiguous as provided for in the Constitution.
The Attorney General said that the President invoked his plenary executive power, which was not pruned by the 19th Amendment and could not be pruned without a referendum.
“No provision of the 19th Amendment was called for a referendum and pruning of President’s powers must have been done via referendum. The 19th Amendment did not require a referendum because executive power was intact as it stood before the referendum. Executive powers cannot be eroded. It can be approved by people exercising the franchise.
“The Article 70(1) cannot be read in isolation when all provisions of the 19th Amendment taken together did not require a referendum because it did not erode the powers of the President,” he said.
He also said that although he received instructions from the President, his legal arguments in his capacity as the Attorney General were impartial at all times.
He said in the event an interim order is given, it would amount to suspending the Constitution and the sovereignty of the people.