ISLAMABAD - Two legal minds and senior lawmakers of PML-Q in the Upper House of the Parliament Friday, while taking part in the historical constitutional debate, strongly backed Chairman Farooq H Naeks decision of appointment of Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri as Leader of the Opposition. Senators S M Zafar and Wasim Sajjad separately giving their arguments in their speeches strongly opposed the demand of PML-Q dissidents to franchise them in the appointment of leader of the opposition. Senator S M Zafar in his speech also refuted the claim of PML-N and its other allied opposition parties that legislators of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) could not be given the right to vote in this appointment. Senior constitutional expert Senator S M Zafar while continuing his debate said that constitutionally no political party could be divided after it would become the parliamentary party. Only Indian constitution allows that at the time of merger of a political party with the other one, some of its members can form a separate group and there is difference between merger and alliance, he added. He said there was no provision in the Constitution about the formation of a separate group within the political party, adding that the allocation of seats to PML-Q dissidents did not divide the party. He viewed that PML-Q dissidents were the members of the single political party - PML-Q - and there was necessity to save any political parties from fragmentation. S M Zafar on the issue of giving the right of vote to members of FATA said that under the Article 47 (A) of Peoples Representation Act, the word independent or detached could be used for those lawmakers where political parties would be in force. FATA is the area where no political parties act comes into force, so lawmakers of the area could not be declared as detached or independents. He strongly stressed that FATA members had the right of vote in the appointment of leader of the opposition adding that it would be their great mistake that on one hand they did not give them political parties act and on the other hand they were being denied the right to vote. There is no categorization that FATA members can not vote for opposition leader as they could not be considered as detached members and according to my view, FATA members can vote on any specific issue for the time being, he said. He again repeating its last day argument said that leader of the opposition was supposed to be appointed who was the representative of the largest majority party from the opposition benches. He said that according to the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Senate, Leader of opposition means a member of a House who, in the 'opinion of the chairman of the Senate, is for the time being the leader of the members in opposition to the government in that House. He while giving the meaning of opinion from Oxford dictionary said that opinion meant that was not necessarily based on facts and not necessary to be proven. However, after becoming the leader of opposition, it represent all the parties sitting on opposition and not his only party, he added. Wasim Sajjad in his arguments also endorsed the view points of S M Zafar and asked the chair that while deciding the matter he would have to keep certain principles in his mind as his decision should strengthen the political parties, promote parliamentary democracy and should not violate the spirit of the constitution as well as any exercise of expression of the chairs opinion should not go against the defection clause. He remarked that the treasury members could differ with one an other on some specific issue bit it did not mean they were part of the opposition and vice versa. A person shall not be a member of more than one party, he said while quoting Political Parties Act, 2002. He said that by laws only allowed to resolve a dispute within the political party. Then the question arises that you are a member of a political party but not functioning as its member, he said He concluded his arguments addressing the chair that will he would give the decision that would bring more fragmentation among the political parties. Senator Haroon Akhtar from PML-Q dissidents gave arguments that contradicted the points of both the lawmakers. He in his speech said that they were part of the parliament party-PML-Q and had been allotted seats by the chair on their application after they disagree with the party decision to become a part of coalition government.