Q. 11: Is it true that the proposal for separate sittings of the National Assembly was made by the President to accommodate the Chairman, Pakistan People's Party, Mr. Z. A. Bhutto'? The latter is reported to have said that while the Six-points provided a viable blueprint to regulate relations between East Pakistan and the Centre, its application would raise serious difficulties in the Wes' Wing. For this reason West Wing MNAs must be permitted to get together to work out a new pattern of relationships in the context of a Six-point Constitution and the dissolution of One Unit.
Answer: The President did not make such a proposal.
Q. 12: Is it true that, once the basic agreement had been reached, “it was again jointly agreed that the distribution of power should, as far the as possible, be approximate to the final Constitution approved by National Assembly which, it was expected, would be based on Six Points".
Answer: Any distribution of powers worked out mutually by the Parties was acceptable to the President, subject only to the LFO, to which the Parties too were committed.
Q. 13: Is it correct to say that “at no stage was there any indication by the President or his team that they had a final position which could not be abandoned"?
Answer: The only final position the President would or could not abandon was the integrity of the State.
Q. 14: Is it correct to say that the President and his team had agreed that power could be transferred by presidential proclamation in line with the Indian Independence Act of 1947?”
Answer: The President was willing to transfer power by an Act of the National Assembly. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 was not a proclamation but an Act of Parliament.
Q. 15: Is it correct to say that the question of legal cover for the transfer of power was subsequently raised by Mr. Bhutto and endorsed by the President and was “merely another belated fabrication" having earlier never been the subject of contention between the President and Sheikh Mujib'?
Answer: The need for a legal cover was always there.
Q. 16: It is alleged that the talks were arbitrarily broken off when there was nothing to prevent the holding of a final drafting session to finalise the interim Constitution. Is this correct? If not, what are the actual facts.
Answer: There was nothing to prevent the holding of the final session save the intransigence of the Awami League leaders who, as reported to the President by other party leaders, refused even to negotiate, not to speak of compromise on the rigid posture they had adopted.
