LAHOR E: Political turmoil at the Pakistan Bar Council, the top regulatory body of the country`s legal fraternity, may worsen with both main groups respectively led by Hamid Khan and Asma Jahangir blaming eachotherforthe chaos.

Independent voices in the bar say the house of the council should be represented by the majority.

However, there is no provision in the Legal Practitioner and Bar Councils Act 1973 for appointment of the council`s focal person.

They believe that the political crisis would jeopardise the basic functioning of the regulatory body.

A PBC meeting on Nov 5 with a majority of 12 members, led byAhsan Bhoon of Ms Jahangir group, appointed Kamran Murtaza as spokesperson for the council, claiming that Vice Chairman Barrister Farogh Naseem `failed to represent the will of the house`. The house comprises 23 members elected for a five-year term.

The majority led by Mr Bhoon accuses the vice-chairman of misusing the bar`s platform to pursue the agenda of the political party he belongs to. Barrister Naseem was elected senator on theMuttahidaQaumiMovement (MQM) ticket. Mr Bhoon says the vice chairman has to represent will of the house.

`The house elected its spokesperson to express view of the majority as the vice chairman was not doing so,` Mr Bhoon states, insisting the act did not violate any rule.

`Anything not restricted in law is permissible,` he argues.

The members of Hamid Khan group argue otherwise, saying the appointment of the spokesperson is totally in violation of the bar council`s rules and a stay issued by the Supreme Court. Barrister Naseem also denies the allegations of towing agenda of any political party using his bar portfolio.

Chaudhry Ishtiaq A. Khan, the PBC member from Hamid Khan group, alleges that the move was politically motivated, dubbing it as an attempt to `use` the bar`s platform in support of PML-N led government mired in Panamagate controversy.

Independent lawyers say though there is no provision in the rules for a PBC spokesperson, democratic spirit requires that will of majority should prevail.

However, they see the controversy as damaging for the council.