<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/musharraf" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/musharraf</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 26 02:30:04 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>SC to hear pleas against LHC verdict on Musharraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2444500/SC-to-hear-pleas-against-LHC-verdict-on-Musharraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2444500/SC-to-hear-pleas-against-LHC-verdict-on-Musharraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 23 18:46:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2444500</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[CJP-led bench to take up appeals on Nov 10 against decision to dissolve special court]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court has set the date for hearing the appeals against the decision to dissolve the special court established against the late former military ruler, Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

A four-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, will hear the case on Nov 10 (Friday).

Apart from the CJP, the bench also includes Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Athar Minallah.

The appeals were filed against the decision of the Lahore High Court, which declared the special court that sentenced Musharraf to death as unconstitutional.

Musharraf was sentenced to death on Dec 17, 2019 by the special court in a high treason case filed in 2013 &ndash; after a span of six years.

However, in January 2020, a three-member bench of the LHC, headed by now SC&rsquo;s Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, quashed the special court&rsquo;s verdict.

The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), as well as senior lawyers Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari and Taufiq Asif approached the apex court against the LHC&rsquo;s decision.

Setting aside Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 for being violative to fundamental rights, the LHC bench, which also included Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Mohammad Masood Jahangir, ruled against the retrospective effect given to an amendment in Article 6 of the Constitution, which dealt with high treason, to try Musharraf for an offence that was not a crime on the date it had occurred.

Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 placed restriction on adjournments and allowed the special court to proceed with the trial even in the absence of any accused after taking necessary steps to appoint an advocate to defend them.

Additional Attorney General Ishtiaq A Khan appeared on behalf of the PTI government and presented a summary and record of the special court&#39;s formation.

&quot;The complaint was not filed according to law. The special court which convicted Musharraf was formed without the approval of the cabinet,&rdquo; the additional attorney general said, as the court resumed hearing of Musharraf&rsquo;s writ petition.

He also apprised the court that the previous PML-N led federal government had directed the interior secretary to register a complaint against the former military ruler.

Read More:&nbsp;TIMELINE: Rise and fall of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf

Musharraf&rsquo;s lawyer, Azhar Siddique, pointed out that &quot;not only was the complaint illegal, the formation of the special court and the subsequent verdict were also not in accordance to law&quot;.

Justice Naqvi remarked: &quot;What is a Constitution? A 12-page book. But a Constitution is your law and such a situation comes under emergency.&rdquo;

He added that an emergency was part of the Constitution. &ldquo;If a situation emerges, and the government imposes emergency, so would the government be also tried under a treason case? An emergency, if imposed, would be reviewed if it was in line with the Constitution or not. A precedent was set, so anyone who would find it suitable would do it,&quot; he continued.

The LHC reserved the judgment on Musharraf&rsquo;s appeal after completion of the arguments and later announced it.

Read More:&nbsp;Musharraf&rsquo;s legacy

Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti is now serving as the LHC CJ and Justice Naqvi has been issued a show-cause notice by the Supreme Judicial Council over complaints of alleged misconduct and purportedly amassing assets beyond means.

The charges against Musharraf &ndash; who was sentenced in absentia by the special court &ndash; stemmed from his imposition of a state of emergency in 2007, after which dozens of judges were placed under house arrest or sacked, sparking widespread street protests by lawyers.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Parliament split over prayers for Musharraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399690/parliament-split-over-prayers-for-musharraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399690/parliament-split-over-prayers-for-musharraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 23 18:51:15 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Haseeb Hanif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2399690</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Senate opp reminds parties of their former military patrons, NRO]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The death of the former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf on Monday became a matter of political wrangling after lawmakers in both the houses of parliament dredged up the legacy of the military junta as a reason to refrain from offering supplication for the departed soul.

The National Assembly offered Fateha on the death of former president. Mohsin Dawar said that no one was ready to recite Fatiha but one person was made to agree to the prayers. If protocol was given to him, it would be clear that some people and institutions were above the Constitution, he added.

The senators bickered and hurled allegations against each other for supporting dictatorial regimes and violators of the Constitution when the issue of prayers for Musharraf came up.

The move of supplication was led by the Leader of the Opposition Senator Shehzad Wasim and supported by other members of his party.

It all started when Jamaat-i-Islami Senator Mushtaq Ahmad refused to lead the invocation after he was asked to pray for the deceased along with those who were killed in the earthquake in Turkey.

&quot;Mr Chairman, I will offer Fateha prayer for (the victims of) the earthquake in Turkiye and Syria, not for Pervez Musharraf,&quot; said Senator Mushtaq Ahmed.

An uproar ensued in the House following the JI senator&#39;s remarks, as members from both of the government and opposition benches stood up from their seats. In the heated exchange, some members reminded Senator Mushtaq that his party had also once supported the military ruler.

Lashing out at those who refused to pray, Waseem pointed out it was ironic that those who had reaped benefits from the former president&rsquo;s National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) now do not deign to even pray for him in his death.

&ldquo;Both parties in the government took the NRO from Musharraf and he was fine at the time when they took the oath with black bands,&rdquo; he recalled, criticising that the parties now had the audacity to preach about their democratic politics.

&#39;Traitors being turned into hero&#39;

The acerbic remarks from the senator drew a strong reaction from the treasury members who rose from their seats and began protesting.

PPP&rsquo;s Maula Bux Chandio also supported those against a joint supplication for Musharraf as he bemoaned that those who violated the Constitution were now being turned into a hero.

He asserted that whoever abrogated the constitution was a traitor. &ldquo;Why do they support those who break the constitution?&rdquo; he wondered.

Senator Faisal Javed pointed out that the incumbent government was busy in imposing restrictions on the same media brought by Musharraf and denounced that journalists were being muzzled in the country.

At this, the chairman interjected and asked the senator to wrap up his speech, while adjourning the meeting till 11 am on Tuesday (today)

Similarly, in the National Assembly, drawing on the traditions, the house offered Fateha for the departed soul.

However, MNA Mohsin Dawar said that no one was ready to recite the prayer, adding that only one person was made to agree to offer the prayers. &ldquo;If a protocol is given to him, it would be clear that some people and institutions were above the Constitution,&rdquo; he added.

Shaikh Rohale Asghar, while referring to former president Musharraf, said that the house offered fateha for a convicted person, but a member of this house (Ali Wazir) even could not be called to the session. &ldquo;You can judge the strength of this house from this.&rdquo;

Later the house was adjourned till Thursday.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PBC expresses concern over repatriation of Musharraf's body on 'taxpayer' money</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399639/pbc-expresses-concern-over-repatriation-of-musharrafs-body-on-taxpayer-money</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399639/pbc-expresses-concern-over-repatriation-of-musharrafs-body-on-taxpayer-money#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 23 10:04:51 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2399639</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Apex regularity body of lawyers says former military ruler was 'absconder' of Constitution]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Executive members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), the apex regularity body of lawyers, on Monday expressed serious concerns regarding the provision of extraordinary protocol for the repatriation of former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf&#39;s body.

PBC Chairperson Hasan Raza Pasha and Vice-Chairperson Haroon-ur-Rashid expressed their condolences on the demise of Musharraf but claimed that the return of the ex-army chief&rsquo;s mortal remains through sending a special plane to the UAE on the expenditure of the Pakistani taxpayer would be a &ldquo;great loss&rdquo; to the exchequer, especially during the current economic condition.

A statement by the PBC maintained that Musharraf &ldquo;usurped the power after a coup in October 1999 and ruled in Pakistan as Former Army Chief and then President of Pakistan till 2008 while abrogating the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and was guilty of high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution&rdquo;.

Read SC never fixed Musharraf&rsquo;s anti-conviction plea

It furthered that he subverted the Constitution twice, first on October 12, 1999, and on November 3, 2007, when he imposed an emergency thus suspending the Constitution.

They expressed that the special court awarded the death sentence to him in the case of high treason under Article 6 for abrogating the Constitution.

&ldquo;He was [an] absconder of Pakistani Courts and should not be given official protocol being convicted person,&rdquo; the statement said.

It added that the PBC &ldquo;filed [an] appeal against Pervaiz Musharraf in high treason case which is still pending before [the] honourable Supreme Court&rdquo;.

The council also paid tribute to the late Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth, the former chief justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), for his historic judgment in the high treason case against Pervez Musharraf.

The statement maintained that the &ldquo;Pakistan Bar Council and legal fraternity had always resisted against unconstitutional steps of usurpers&rdquo;.

&ldquo;The institution of [the] Army is very dear to the people of Pakistan as [the] defender of the homeland and it should perform its duties and functions prescribed under [the] Constitution of Pakistan and should not violate its Oath&rdquo;.

It further said that the lawyer community was committed to striving for protecting the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Pakistan.



Musharraf, who had been living in Dubai since 2016, breathed his last on Sunday at the age of 79.

The former president and army chief was suffering from amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body, according to his family.

The build-up of amyloid proteins (deposits) can make it difficult for the organs and tissues to work properly.

According to the sources, a chartered plane would reach Dubai from Islamabad on Monday, alongside his family members, to transport the body to the country.

However, a Pakistan air force source told AFP that Musharraf&rsquo;s body would be flown back to Pakistan aboard a civilian liner or UAE air force jet.

APML Information Secretary Tahir Hussain said the family had confirmed that Musharraf&rsquo;s body would be brought to Karachi on Monday through a special plane.

Musharraf seized power in a 1999 bloodless coup and was acting simultaneously as Pakistan&rsquo;s army chief, chief executive, and president when the 9/11 attacks on the US took place.

The general twice suspended the country&#39;s Constitution and was accused of rigging a referendum shoring up his power, as well as rampant rights abuses including rounding up opponents during his nearly nine-year rule.

Nonetheless, he became Washington&rsquo;s chief regional ally during its invasion of neighbouring Afghanistan.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>TIMELINE: Rise and fall of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399536/timeline-rise-and-fall-of-former-military-ruler-pervez-musharraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2399536/timeline-rise-and-fall-of-former-military-ruler-pervez-musharraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 23 14:59:18 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Anadolu Agency]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2399536</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Musharraf, 79, who ruled country from 1999 to 2008, passes away on Sunday in Dubai after protracted illness]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf passed away after a protracted illness in a hospital in the United Arab Emirates on Sunday. He was 79.

Musharraf, who ruled the country from 1999 to 2008, was under treatment at American Hospital in Dubai and died early Sunday.

He was suffering from amyloidosis &ndash; a rare disease that causes organ damage &ndash; and was unlikely to recover.

Below is a timeline of his career and the events that took place during his rule and after.

Oct 6, 1998: Gen Pervez Musharraf is appointed as the new army chief following the resignation of his predecessor, Gen Jahangir Karamat.

May 3, 1999: Kargil war with longtime rival India starts which ended on July 6, 1999.

Oct 12, 1999: Musharraf topples the government of three-time premier Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless military coup.

June 20, 2001: Musharraf becomes president of Pakistan through a controversial referendum.

Oct 10, 2002: He holds general elections in the country that brings Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e -Azam (PML-Q) and its allies to power.

Nov 3, 2007: President Pervez Musharraf declares a state of emergency and suspends the 1973 Constitution, rendering as many as 61 judges of the superior judiciary dysfunctional, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

All private channels go off the air, and only state-controlled PTV releases a proclamation of emergency order which speaks of the &quot;visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists&quot; as the reason for imposing the emergency.

Nov 28, 2007: Musharraf retires from the military to focus full-time on politics, turning over control of the army to Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

Nov 29, 2007: The retired general takes the oath as a civilian president.

Dec 15, 2007: President Musharraf lifts the emergency, revokes the Provisional Constitutional Order and revives a Constitution amended through presidential decrees seeking to validate actions taken during the 42-day emergency period.

Chief justices and judges of the Supreme Court, high courts and Federal Shariat Court take a fresh oath.

June 7, 2008: Musharraf categorically declares he has no plans to resign or go into exile.

Aug 18, 2008: After ruling the country for nine years, President Musharraf resigns from office, averting the possibility of impeachment.

July 22, 2009: In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court calls the former military ruler to defend his actions on Nov 3, 2007.

July 31, 2009: The Supreme Court rules that Musharraf&#39;s decision to impose a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007 as well as his Provisional Constitutional Order were illegal and unconstitutional. The court gives him seven days to respond.

Aug 6, 2009: Musharraf refuses to answer the charges against him and leaves Pakistan for the United Kingdom.

June 8, 2010: The former president&#39;s political aides launch a political party &mdash; the APML &mdash; with Musharraf as its chief.

March 22, 2013: Musharraf gets pre-homecoming protective bail for 10 days in three high-profile cases.

March 24, 2013: The self-exiled former president returns to Pakistan to contest general elections.

March 27, 2013: Senior counsel AK Dogar, during a hearing pertaining to strict adherence to Articles 62 and 63 during elections, refers to the Supreme Court&rsquo;s ruling on Musharraf&#39;s actions on Nov 3, 2007. Reading out excerpts from the judgment, he argues that in overthrowing the constitution, Musharraf had committed the offense of high treason.

March 29, 2013: Sindh High Court grants an extension in bail for Musharraf but rules that he cannot leave the country without permission.

April 5, 2013: Supreme Court agrees to hear a petition seeking to prosecute Musharraf under Sections 2 and 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973.

April 7, 2013: Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry withdraws himself from the three-member bench formed to hear the treason case against Musharraf.

April 8, 2013: Supreme Court summons the former military ruler in the treason case against him. The court also instructs the Interior Ministry to add his name to the Exit Control List.

April 18, 2013: Musharraf flees from the premises of the Islamabad High Court after the cancellation of his bail application.

April 19, 2013: Musharraf surrenders in a magistrate&#39;s court in the judges&#39; detention case. His farmhouse residence in the Chak Shahzad suburb of Islamabad is declared a sub-jail.

April 30, 2013: The Peshawar High Court bars Musharraf from ever contesting elections for either the National Assembly or the Senate.

June 5, 2013: Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui recuses himself from hearing Musharraf&#39;s post-arrest bail plea in the judges&#39; detention case, citing a &quot;malicious campaign&quot; against him &quot;after I rejected the pre-arrest bail of the applicant in April&quot;.

June 14, 2013: Minister for Law and Justice Zahid Hamid distances himself from the 2007 state of emergency. The minister says there was no question of him having allegedly abetted Musharraf as the proclamation of emergency order came from the former president. He also denies having had any contact with Musharraf.

June 24, 2013: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tells the National Assembly that his government will ask the Supreme Court to try Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution.

Nov 18, 2013: The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry agrees to set up a special tribunal to try the former president for high treason.

Nov 19, 2013: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government submits five charges of high treason against Musharraf in a special court. A three-member bench to hear the case is also formed.

Dec 12, 2013: Special court summons Musharraf to face treason charges.

Dec 20, 2013: The former army chief, in an interview, seeks &ldquo;forgiveness&rdquo; for any wrongs he may have committed during his nine-year rule.

Jan 2, 2014: Musharraf is moved to a hospital after suffering a &quot;heart problem&quot; while on his way to a special court hearing of the high treason case against him. His arrest warrant is not issued on medical grounds.

Jan 7, 2014: The Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology submits Musharraf&#39;s medical report to the court, detailing that the former army chief is suffering from &quot;triple-vessel coronary artery disease and eight other diseases&quot;.

Jan 16, 2014: Special court orders the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology to constitute a medical board to assess the former president&#39;s health and to submit a report. The board subsequently declares Musharraf to be in a &quot;critical state&quot; and recommends his treatment at a place of his choice.

Jan 28, 2014: The prosecution expresses a lack of confidence in Musharraf&#39;s medical report and requests the special court to summon the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology chief for cross-examination.

Feb 7, 2014: Special court once again orders Musharraf to appear in the treason case.

Feb 18, 2014: After avoiding 22 consecutive hearings, Musharraf finally appears in court, but no charges are framed against him as the defence argues that the case should be heard in a military court.

Feb 21, 2014: Special court rules that the former army chief is not to be tried in a military court.

March 30, 2014: Musharraf is indicted for treason and pleads not guilty to all charges.

April 1, 2014: The PML-N government offers to fly Musharraf&#39;s ailing mother to Pakistan from Sharjah.

April 2, 2014: The government rejects Musharraf&#39;s petition seeking the removal of his name from the Exit Control List.

April 3, 2014: Musharraf petitions the Supreme Court for the removal of his name from the Exit Control List so he may travel abroad to visit his ailing mother.

April 7, 2014: Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif breaks his silence over Musharraf&#39;s high treason trial, saying the army will &quot;preserve its own dignity and institutional pride&quot; in response to &ldquo;the concerns of soldiers on undue criticism of the institution (army) in recent days&rdquo;.

May 14, 2014: Federal Investigation Agency declares it has &quot;irrefutable proof&quot; that Musharraf illegally imposed the 2007 state of emergency.

June 12, 2014: Sindh High Court strikes down the federal government&#39;s order barring Musharraf from overseas travel, ruling that &quot;not a single ground&rdquo; was mentioned in the memorandum placing his name on the Exit Control List.

June 13, 2014: Special court rejects Musharraf&rsquo;s plea for details of &quot;abettors&quot; who had suggested, endorsed, or implemented the Nov 3, 2007 state of emergency.

June 14, 2014: The government moves the top court against the Sindh High Court&rsquo;s ruling allowing Musharraf&#39;s travel abroad.

June 23, 2014: The apex court suspends the Sindh High Court&rsquo;s judgment allowing Musharraf to travel abroad until it decides on the pending appeal.

Sept 8, 2014: Musharraf&#39;s legal team gets hold of crucial evidence pointing toward the then-premier Shaukat Aziz&#39;s role in the imposition of the 2007 state of emergency.

Oct 15, 2014: The former president&#39;s defence team asks the special court for a collective trial of all his accomplices.

Nov 21, 2014: Special court directs the federal government to resubmit its complaint in the treason case, this time including the names of former premier Aziz, Federal Minister Zahid Hamid -- who was law minister at the time &mdash; and former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar to the charge sheet.

Dec 22, 2015: Musharraf says he invoked the state of emergency after consulting Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani among other civilian and military leaders.

March 14, 2016: The former president seeks one-time permission to go abroad on medical grounds.

March 16, 2016: Supreme Court orders the removal of Musharraf&#39;s name from the Exit Control List, allowing him to travel abroad for treatment.

March 18, 2016: Musharraf leaves for Dubai to seek medical treatment, promising to come back to his &quot;beloved homeland&quot; in a few weeks.

May 11, 2016: Special court declares Musharraf an absconder in the high treason case against him.

Nov 16, 2016: Musharraf&rsquo;s farmhouse is attached to the high treason case.

Feb 27, 2017: Former president launches a career as a TV analyst.

Nov 10, 2017: Musharraf announces the &#39;grand alliance&#39; of 23 political parties that will operate under the umbrella of the Pakistan Awami Ittehad (PAI).

March 29, 2018: Special court bench dissolves after Justice Yahya Afridi recuses himself from hearing the high treason case.

April 7, 2018: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar reconstitutes bench hearing Musharraf treason case.

May 31, 2018: Interior Ministry, complying with the special court&#39;s orders, asks the National Database and Registration Authority and the Directorate General of Immigration and Passports to suspend Musharraf&#39;s national identity card and passport.

June 7, 2018: Supreme Court allows Musharraf to run for polls on the condition that he appears in person before the court.

June 20, 2018: Musharraf says he was set to return to Pakistan but the Supreme Court&#39;s order barring authorities from arresting him made him change his mind.

July 30, 2018: The prosecution head in the treason case against Musharraf quits.

Aug 3, 2018: Special court decides to resume the trial &mdash; stalled due to Musharraf&#39;s departure from the country &mdash; beginning Aug 20.

Aug 20, 2018: Citing threats to his life, Musharraf seeks presidential security to appear before the court in the treason case.

Aug 29, 2018: Special court is told that Interpol has refused to issue a red warrant for Musharraf&#39;s repatriation from the United Arab Emirates, where he has been living since 2016.

Oct 2, 2018: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar grills Musharraf&#39;s lawyer on the &quot;brave commando&#39;s&quot; overdue return to Pakistan.

Oct 24, 2018: APML discloses that Musharraf is suffering from amyloidosis and has difficulty standing and walking.

Nov 19, 2018: Court tells Musharraf&#39;s counsel to convince Musharraf to return and provide his itinerary so the treason case could proceed.

March 31, 2019: Supreme Court orders Musharraf to appear before the special court in the treason case on May 2 or lose his right of defence.

April 1, 2019: Supreme Court under Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa issues a decree telling the special court to proceed in the treason case without Musharraf&#39;s statement if he fails to appear the following month.

June 11, 2019: Supreme Court orders the National Database and Registration Authority to unblock Musharraf&#39;s Computerized National Identity Card and passport.

July 30, 2019: The prosecution head in the treason case against Musharraf quits.

Oct 8, 2019: Special court decides to hear the treason trial on a daily basis from Oct 24.

Oct 24, 2019: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government sacks the prosecution team in the treason case.

Nov 19, 2019: The special court concludes its proceedings in the high treason case against the former military ruler, saying a verdict will be pronounced on Nov 28.

Nov 23, 2019: Musharraf petitions the Lahore High Court to challenge the reservation of the judgment in the treason case.

Nov 25, 2019: The case takes a new turn as the Interior Ministry files a petition in the Islamabad High Court requesting it to set aside the special court&#39;s decision to reserve a judgment in the case without hearing from the prosecution.

Nov 26, 2019: Lahore High Court accepts to hear Musharraf&#39;s petition challenging the special court&#39;s decision.

Nov 27, 2019: Islamabad High Court stops special court from announcing the verdict in Musharraf treason case.

Dec 5, 2019: Special court says it will announce the verdict in the case on Dec 17. Musharraf moves the Lahore High Court to stay the trial at the special court until his earlier petition pending adjudication by the high court is decided.

Dec 17, 2019: Special court hands Musharraf death sentence in the long, drawn-out high treason case against him.

Jan 13, 2020: A three-member bench of Lahore High Court sets aside his conviction in the high treason case.

Feb 5, 2023: Musharraf passes away in a hospital in Dubai after a protracted illness.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf’s treatment isn’t possible in Pakistan, clarifies family</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362320/musharrafs-treatment-isnt-possible-in-pakistan-clarifies-family</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362320/musharrafs-treatment-isnt-possible-in-pakistan-clarifies-family#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jun 22 16:55:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[News Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2362320</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Say they have to consider medical, legal and security challenges]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Amid speculations of former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf&rsquo;s return to the country after positive signals were given by certain quarters of the state, his family on Sunday said that his treatment is not possible in Pakistan.

In a statement issued through the former army chief&rsquo;s official Twitter account, his family said that they have received communications from official and unofficial channels regarding the facilitation of his return to Pakistan.



Message from Family pic.twitter.com/TDFYUypJcH
&mdash; Pervez Musharraf (@P_Musharraf) June 19, 2022


&ldquo;We sincerely appreciate these overtures since Pakistan is home,&rdquo; they said.

However, they added that they have to consider the medical, legal, and security challenges Musharraf would face in the country.

Without categorically stating that the former military dictator cannot return to the country, his family said that an uninterrupted supply and administration of the experimental drug Daratumumab, which is needed alongside associated treatment of Amyloidosis, is not available in Pakistan.

The seriousness of Musharraf&rsquo;s medical condition came to light when rumours regarding his death began to circulate on social media, prompting his family to issue a statement.

&ldquo;He is not on the ventilator. Has been hospitalised for the last 3 weeks due to a complication of his ailment (amyloidosis),&quot; the family said in a statement issued through Musharraf&#39;s Twitter handle. &quot;Going through a difficult stage where recovery is not possible and organs are malfunctioning. Pray for ease in his daily living.&rdquo;

Later, it was reported that the former chief of army staff wants to spend the rest of his life in Pakistan, and the Pakistan Army also broke its silence on the matter. In a television interview, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Major General Babar Iftikhar said that the military leadership believes that their former chief should be brought back to Pakistan.

Also read: Musharraf&#39;s return a fait accompli: Gilani

This was followed by a statement issued by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supreme leader Nawaz Sharif, who, in a tweet, urged the coalition government led by his party to allow the former military ruler back into the country.

It is worth noting here that as the matter continued to be discussed by the public and media, Pakistan People&rsquo;s Party (PPP) senior leader Yousaf Raza Gillani said that the decision in this regard would not be made lawmakers, rather it would be made &ldquo;somewhere&rdquo; else.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Two years on, SC yet to take up Musharraf’s plea against death sentence</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362207/two-years-on-sc-yet-to-take-up-musharrafs-plea-against-death-sentence</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2362207/two-years-on-sc-yet-to-take-up-musharrafs-plea-against-death-sentence#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jun 22 18:43:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2362207</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Apex court had ordered fixing before one of its benches an application filed against the court registrar’s decision]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Despite the passage of more than two years, the Supreme Court has yet to fix ex-military ruler Pervez Musharraf&#39;s plea in open court challenging the registrar&rsquo;s decision of not entertaining his appeal seeking to overturn the Dec 17, 2019 death sentence awarded to him by the special court in the high treason case.

In 2020, the SC registrar&#39;s office had returned Gen Musharraf&rsquo;s appeal on the grounds that unless the petitioner surrendered himself, his plea could not be entertained. The ailing former military ruler is presently living abroad.

However, later the apex court ordered fixing before one of its benches an application filed against the court registrar&rsquo;s decision.

The decision to fix the matter before a bench was taken by the incumbent CJP Umar Ata Bandial after hearing Advocate Salman Safdar, Gen Musharraf&rsquo;s counsel, in his chamber.

Read more:&nbsp;Ailing ex-president Musharraf &lsquo;wants to spend rest of his life in Pakistan&rsquo;

Nonetheless, the SC Registrar did not fix the appeal during the entire tenure of former CJP Gulzar Ahmed.

Interestingly, Musharraf filed the appeal in the apex court even though a three-judge bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has already declared unconstitutional the filing of high treason case against him, the formation of the special court as well as its proceedings, leading to the abolition of the death penalty handed down to him.

Subsequently, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) also challenged the LHC verdict. Its petition is yet to be fixed before the bench.

Furthermore, senior lawyer Hamid Khan had also raised questions on ex-CJP Gulzar Ahmed&rsquo;s failure to fix the petitions against the LHC verdict in favour of Musharraf.

&lsquo;Musharraf wanted to pursue the case&rsquo;

Musharraf&#39;s counsel Salman Safdar told The Express Tribune said that just before the former president&rsquo;s condition went critical, he was actively pursuing the high treason case and was very anxious to return to his homeland and pursue the cases registered against him.

Also read:&nbsp;Musharraf&rsquo;s recovery not possible: Family

The counsel said that due to multiple serious ailments, Musharraf was not in a position to give any instructions to him.

&quot;My active communication ended almost a year ago and since then family members &ndash; Bilal Musharraf and Begum Sahiba Musharraf &ndash; are following cases on his behalf,&rdquo; he added

He also said that Musharraf&#39;s appeal in SC was pending with an objection that he was not present in the country, which is a mandatory requirement.

&quot;The objection petition was heard by a single judge in the chambers and the matter was ordered to be heard by a larger bench of SC which to date has not been constituted.&rdquo;

Meanwhile, it was learnt that senior lawyers had advised Musharraf&rsquo;s supporters to challenge the special court order which was issued in line of SC judgment.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf awaits medics’ nod after govt green-lights homecoming, claims aide</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361861/musharraf-awaits-medics-nod-after-govt-green-lights-homecoming-claims-aide</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361861/musharraf-awaits-medics-nod-after-govt-green-lights-homecoming-claims-aide#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 22 17:55:09 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Aamir Khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2361861</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former president will be flown to Pakistan from Dubai by air ambulance if doctors allow, say sources]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The federal government has given a green signal to ailing former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since 2016, to return to Pakistan as soon as the legal requirements are fulfilled.

Sources privy to the development told The Express Tribune on Thursday that the family of the former president has been told that the legal requirements and other arrangements for his return will be made as soon as he took a final decision on his homecoming.

However, the return of the former military ruler is subject to the opinion and permission of his doctors, who have been consulted in this regard, said the sources close to the ex-army chief.

If the doctors allowed the former president to travel then Musharraf will be flown to Pakistan from Dubai by air ambulance, they added.

The family of the ex-president is also assessing whether his medical treatment would be possible in Pakistan if he returns.

The 79-year-old former military ruler is suffering from amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body, according to his family.

Also read: Musharraf&#39;s return a fait accompli: Gilani

The build-up of amyloid proteins (deposits) can make it difficult for the organs and tissues to work properly. His family has said it was impossible for him to recover.

The sources said the government officials have decided that obstacles in return of Musharraf will be removed legally in view of his critical condition.

He will likely be brought back to Islamabad or the second option is Karachi.

Dr Muhammad Amjad, a close associate of Musharraf, confirmed to The Express Tribune that the federal government had honoured the desire of the ex-army chief to spend the rest of his life in Pakistan and allowed him to return to his homeland.

The former army chief, who ruled Pakistan for almost nine years, made the headlines again this month after he had expressed his wish to spend his remaining years in Pakistan. The sources close to the ex-army chief had also said that Musharraf wanted to move to Pakistan at the earliest.

The report was followed by a statement by PML-N supreme leader Nawaz Sharif wherein he had urged the PML-N government to allow the former dictator to come back. It may be noted here that Musharraf had come to power after toppling the government of then premier Nawaz.

Similarly, the Pakistan Army&#39;s spokesperson Maj Gen Babar Iftikhar had expressed support for the return of Musharraf during a recent press briefing.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Ailing ex-president Musharraf ‘wants to spend rest of his life in Pakistan’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361407/ailing-ex-president-musharraf-wants-to-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361407/ailing-ex-president-musharraf-wants-to-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 22 20:10:11 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Aamir Khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2361407</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[His close associates have approached ‘powerful quarters’ to ensure his early return to the country, say sources]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since 2016, has expressed his desire to his close associates that he wants to spend the rest of his life in Pakistan, The Express Tribune has learnt.

The sources said on Monday that the ailing former president wants to return to his homeland as soon as possible. His close associates have approached the &#39;powerful quarters&#39; and government officials to remove any obstacle in his return to the country.

The development comes after Musharraf&rsquo;s family last Friday denied reports of his demise, saying the former chief executive was not on the ventilator but added that his recovery was not possible.

&ldquo;He has been hospitalised for the last 3 weeks due to a complication of his ailment (Amyloidosis). Going through a difficult stage where recovery is not possible and organs are malfunctioning. Pray for ease in his daily living,&quot; the family wrote in a statement through Musharraf&#39;s official Twitter account.



Message from Family:

He is not on the ventilator. Has been hospitalized for the last 3 weeks due to a complication of his ailment (Amyloidosis). Going through a difficult stage where recovery is not possible and organs are malfunctioning. Pray for ease in his daily living. pic.twitter.com/xuFIdhFOnc
&mdash; Pervez Musharraf (@P_Musharraf) June 10, 2022


Musharraf&#39;s close aide Dr Muhammad Amjad told The Express Tribune that Musharraf was suffering from a serious illness and described his condition as critical.

Musharraf has played a significant role in the development of Pakistan and it is his right that he spends the rest of his life in Pakistan, he added.

Dr Amjad confirmed that Pervez Musharraf wanted to return to Pakistan immediately while his close allies are in touch with the authorities concerned to ensure his return.

Also read: Musharraf&rsquo;s recovery not possible: Family

He also requested the federal government and army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa to take steps to bring back Musharraf to his homeland so that he could spend the rest of his life here.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said last week that there should be no obstacle in former president Pervez Musharraf&#39;s return to Pakistan in view of his illness

He also prayed for the former military ruler&#39;s health so that he could live his remaining life with dignity.



جنرل مشرف کی خراب صحت کے پیش نظر انکو وطن واپس آنے میں کوئی رکاوٹ نہیں ھونا چاہیے. ماضی کے واقعات کواس سلسلے میں مانع نہیں ھونے دینا چاہیے .اللہ انکو صحت دے اور وہ عمر کے اس حصہ میں وقار کیساتھ اپنا وقت گزار سکیں..
&mdash; Khawaja M. Asif (@KhawajaMAsif) June 11, 2022


The 79-year-old former military ruler is suffering from amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body, according to his family. The build-up of amyloid proteins (deposits) can make it difficult for the organs and tissues to work properly.

Amyloidosis can affect different organs in different people, and there are different types of amyloid. Amyloidosis frequently affects the heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, nervous system and digestive tract.

In the human body, plasma cells stored in bones perform the important function of making antibodies. However, a patient suffering from amyloidosis starts releasing protein from his plasma cells because of which antibodies called amyloid to become dysfunctional and dangerous.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Defence budget shrinking in GDP terms: DG ISPR</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361539/defence-budget-shrinking-in-gdp-terms-dg-ispr</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2361539/defence-budget-shrinking-in-gdp-terms-dg-ispr#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 22 16:28:17 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2361539</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Military leadership believes Musharraf should be brought back to Pakistan, says Maj Gen Babar Iftikhar]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The chief military spokesperson has sought to quash the perception that the defence budget has been hiked for the next fiscal year, saying that defence allocations have actually been reduced if inflation and rupee depreciation are factored in.

The budget document shows that the defence outlay for financial year 2022-23 would be Rs1,523 billion as compared to the revised defence spending of Rs1,483 earmarked for the ongoing fiscal. However, the proposed increase in defence spending reaches 11 per cent when compared with the pre-revision budget of Rs1,370 billion.

Observers, however, say that given the runaway inflation in reality there was no increase in defence spending during the last three years.

Also read: Ailing ex-president Musharraf &lsquo;wants to spend rest of his life in Pakistan&rsquo;

Citing a ritualistic debate on defence allocations after every budget, DG ISPR Maj Gen Babar Iftikhar said in a TV interview that the military expenditures were based on &ldquo;threat perception, challenges, deployment and availability of resources&rdquo;.

&ldquo;Considering all factors, the military has not sought any increase in its budgetary allocations since 2020&hellip; defence budget has been actually reduced. It was 2.8pc of GDP last year and now it stands at 2.2%, so the defence spending is going down in GDP terms.&rdquo;

Speaking about the austerity measures, he said that the military has issued instructions for conserving fuel and curtailing expenditures. The military would observe Friday as a &ldquo;dry day&rdquo; which means no official transport would be used except in emergency.

Asked about the ailing former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, Maj Gen Babar said that the military brass believes he should be brought back to Pakistan. Gen (retd) Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since 2106, is critically ill and his family says it is impossible for him to recover.



جنرل مشرف کی خراب صحت کے پیش نظر انکو وطن واپس آنے میں کوئی رکاوٹ نہیں ھونا چاہیے. ماضی کے واقعات کواس سلسلے میں مانع نہیں ھونے دینا چاہیے .اللہ انکو صحت دے اور وہ عمر کے اس حصہ میں وقار کیساتھ اپنا وقت گزار سکیں..
&mdash; Khawaja M. Asif (@KhawajaMAsif) June 11, 2022


&ldquo;General Pervez Musharraf&#39;s health is very bad. In such a situation, the leadership of the institution is of the view that he should be brought back to Pakistan. But this decision will be made by his family and doctors,&rdquo; he said while adding that Musharraf&rsquo;s family has been contacted for this purpose.

If the family gives its consent, then arrangements would be made to bring him back.

The Express Tribune reported on Monday that Musharraf desires to spend the rest of his life in Pakistan. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has said that there should be no obstacle in Musharraf&#39;s return. Asif also prayed for his health so that he could live his remaining life with &lsquo;dignity&rsquo;.

Read more: Rs1.52tr allocated for defence spending

Former prime minister Imran Khan has repeatedly claimed that he had been ousted from power through a foreign conspiracy.

However, Maj Gen Babar said that no evidence of any &ldquo;foreign conspiracy&rdquo; was found and the National Security Committee (NSC) participants were clearly told that no conspiracy was hatched against the PTI government.

&quot;No one has the right to twist and distort the facts. The armed forces and their leadership have been the target of propaganda for some time now,&quot; he added.

Responding to former interior minister Sheikh Rashid&rsquo;s claims about the NSC meeting, the military spokesperson said everyone has a right to have an opinion but &ldquo;no one should spread lies&rdquo;.

Maj Gen Babar said he would not comment on the ongoing meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global financial watchdog, adding that India had lobbied to have Pakistan placed on the black list.

The military spokesperson described the recent China visit of army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa as &ldquo;very imporatnt&rdquo; in which the two countries vowed to step up cooperation on &ldquo;their strategic partnership&rdquo; in the challenging times.

The DG ISPR disclosed that the army chief also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the visit.

Pakistan-China have strategic ties which are crucial for peace in the region, he said and added that no compromise would be made on the security of CPEC projects. Security of the CPEC projects has been given to Pakistan Army, he added.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf’s recovery not possible: Family</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2360930/musharrafs-recovery-not-possible-family</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2360930/musharrafs-recovery-not-possible-family#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 22 12:51:16 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Aamir Khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2360930</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler has been hospitalised for the last 3 weeks in UAE]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The family of former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who has been living in Dubai since 2016, on Friday denied reports of his demise.

&ldquo;He is not on the ventilator. Has been hospitalised for the last 3 weeks due to a complication of his ailment (amyloidosis),&quot; the family wrote in a statement through Musharraf&#39;s official Twitter account.

&quot;Going through a difficult stage where recovery is not possible and organs are malfunctioning. Pray for ease in his daily living,&quot; it added.

The statement came amid rumours of his death doing the rounds on social media and also reported by some Indian publications.

A source close to the former president&rsquo;s family told The Express Tribune that all the rumours circulating on social media regarding the death of Musharraf were false.

The former ruler was admitted to the hospital after he complained of difficulty in breathing, the source added.



Message from Family:

He is not on the ventilator. Has been hospitalized for the last 3 weeks due to a complication of his ailment (Amyloidosis). Going through a difficult stage where recovery is not possible and organs are malfunctioning. Pray for ease in his daily living. pic.twitter.com/xuFIdhFOnc
&mdash; Pervez Musharraf (@P_Musharraf) June 10, 2022


Dr Muhammad Amjad, a close associate of Musharraf, also told The Express Tribune that the report of his demise was false. &ldquo;He is alive and undergoing treatment.&rdquo;

Amaan Khan Tareen, a spokesperson for the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), Musharraf&rsquo;s party, also dismissed the reports of his death.

Also read: Musharraf, his successors face notices over &lsquo;enforced disappearances&rsquo;

The 78-year-old former military ruler is suffering from amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body, according to his family. The build-up of amyloid proteins (deposits) can make it difficult for the organs and tissues to work properly.

Amyloidosis can affect different organs in different people, and there are different types of amyloid. Amyloidosis frequently affects the heart, kidneys, liver, spleen, nervous system and digestive tract.

In a human body, plasma cells stored in bones perform the important function of making antibodies. However, a patient suffering from amyloidosis starts releasing protein from his plasma cells because of which antibodies called amyloid become dysfunctional and dangerous.

The diagnosis of the disease is confirmed by a blood test for amyloidosis called immunofixation. The patient may also catch anomalies in the nervous system and experience weakness in movement and body parts.

Symptoms of the disease include weakness, swollen bones and kidneys after which limbs may also swell. In addition, changes in the texture of hands and tongue are also experienced. The tongue becomes swollen. It can also affect the heart.

Dr Tahir Shamsi, a haematologist, said the progression of the disease could be controlled but the symptoms returned after a few months.

The disease generally manifests in patients over 70 years of age. In Pakistan, the prevalence rate for amyloidosis is 1.5%. The disease is not contagious and does not have genetic roots.

The former ruler&rsquo;s illness came to light in 2018 when the APML announced that he was suffering from the rare disease.

Musharraf seized power in 1999 in a bloodless coup after the then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif tried to dismiss him as army chief, having appointed him above more senior officers a year earlier.

The four-star general was ruling Pakistan as a &quot;chief executive&quot; when the 9/11 attacks on the US took place, and swiftly aligned with Washington during its military intervention in neighbouring Afghanistan.
In more than seven years in office, he oversaw a stint of economic growth while dodging at least three assassination attempts.

Musharraf won a five-year term as president in a 2002 referendum, but reneged on promises to quit as army chief until late 2007.

His easygoing charm also failed to mask the blurring of the division between the state and army, and he fell out of favour after trying to sack the chief justice.

After the December 2007 assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, the national mood soured even more and crushing losses suffered by his allies in 2008 elections left him isolated.

Musharraf&#39;s plan to return to power in 2013 was dashed when he was disqualified from running in an election won by Nawaz -- the man he had deposed in 1999.

In 2016 a travel ban was lifted and Musharraf travelled to Dubai to seek medical treatment.

In 2014, Musharraf was indicted for suspending the Constitution on November 3, 2007.

The ex-military strongman was awarded the death sentence in absentia in a high treason case by a special court in December 2019.

However, a court later nullified the ruling.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf, his successors face notices over ‘enforced disappearances’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2359005/musharraf-his-successors-face-notices-over-enforced-disappearances</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2359005/musharraf-his-successors-face-notices-over-enforced-disappearances#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 22 19:39:51 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2359005</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[IHC says involvement of armed forces in acts amounting to violation of human rights weakens rule of law]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Islamabad High Court has directed the federal government to issue notices to former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and all his successive chief executives of the country including incumbent PM Shehbaz Sharif as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them for subversion of the Constitution in context of the state policy on enforced disappearance.

&quot;The Federal Government shall issue and serve notices on General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and all other successor Chief Executives i.e. the former Prime Ministers, including the incumbent holder of the office. They shall submit their respective affidavits explaining why the Court may not order proceedings against them for alleged subversion of the Constitution in the context of the undeclared tacit approval of the policy regarding enforced disappearances and thus putting national security at risk by allowing the involvement of law enforcing agencies, particularly the Armed Forces. The onus is on each Chief Executive to rebut the presumption and to explain why they may not be tried for the offence of high treason&quot;, read an order authored by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah in a matter related to missing persons.

Read more: IHC issues notice to NAB chief in Musharraf assets case

The court also said that perception of the involvement of law enforcement agencies, particularly the armed forces, in this grave crime against humanity was the most profound violation of public interest and policy.

The order read that the federal government shall consider the proposals and recommendations submitted by rights activist Amina Masood Janjua, the amicus curie appointed by the court, and furnish a report.

&quot;In case the missing persons are [neither] recovered nor effective and demonstrable actions/decisions are taken by the Federal Government then the current and former Ministers of Interior shall appear in person to explain why the petitions may not be decided and exemplary costs imposed upon them for the unimaginable agony and pain suffered by the petitioners on account of lack of response and empathy while dealing with their grievances.&quot;

The court further noted that the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) would satisfy it that in case of alleged disappearances in the future, why criminal cases might not be ordered to be registered against the chief executives of the federation and the provinces concerned.
The court directed its registrar to send a copy of this order to the interior secretary for compliance. &ldquo;The latter [interior secretary] is directed to place a copy of this order before the worthy prime minister and members of the federal cabinet.&quot;

The order read that the existence of the phenomenon of &ldquo;enforced disappearances&rdquo; was intolerable and, more so, when overwhelming evidence manifested that it had remained and continued to be an undeclared tacit policy of the State.

&ldquo;The Armed Forces have and continue to render sacrifices for the security and integrity of the country. They ought to be respected by every citizen otherwise the security and integrity of the country and its people is exposed to being jeopardised. The involvement or even a perception of the involvement of the Armed Forces in acts amounting to violation of human rights and freedom of the citizens weakens and undermines the rule of law. It definitely puts national security and integrity at risk.&rdquo;

The court observed that the Constitution did not contemplate the existence of a &ldquo;state within a state&rdquo; and the framers had unambiguously intended a scheme of civilian control and oversight through chosen representatives.

&ldquo;Any other form of governance would amount to subverting the scheme of the Constitution and thus exposing the perpetrators to be accountable under the high treason offence described under Article 6.&quot;
The order read that the federal government should take appropriate measures so as to enable the family members of the missing persons to inform the public regarding their grievances. &ldquo;It shall also be ensured that there is no undeclared censorship observed by the print and electronic media.&quot;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Broadsheet CEO claims Pakistan govt knows who transferred $1bn to UK</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2280100/broadsheet-ceo-claims-pakistan-govt-knows-who-transferred-1bn-to-uk</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2280100/broadsheet-ceo-claims-pakistan-govt-knows-who-transferred-1bn-to-uk#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 21 18:43:32 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Zain Ul Abideen Siddiqui]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2280100</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Islamabad not showing any interest in tracing UK bank account having $1bn, says Moussavi]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Broadsheet LLC Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kaveh Moussavi has said that he had &quot;voluntarily&quot; identified a suspicious bank account in the United Kingdom having an amount of $1 billion but the government of Pakistan has not shown any interest in tracing it.

Responding to a question in an interview with BBC Urdu on Friday, he said that the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan knows whom the suspicious account belonged to. However, he stayed short of revealing the identity during the interview.

The Broadsheet CEO said that he was in talks with the government to offer his services in tracing the assets of Pakistani political figures abroad. However, he alleged that a representative of the incumbent government talked about &quot;commission&quot; &ndash; a term often used in the subcontinent for kickback &ndash; for himself upon identifying the bank account.

He said that if an agreement is reached, he can &quot;hand over the evidence collected against the Sharif family to the Pakistani government.&quot;

&#39;Musharraf was interested in tracing assets of Nawaz, Benazir and Zardari only&#39;

According to Moussavi, former president and Chief of Army Staff General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was particularly interested in tracing the overseas assets of Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari so the money allegedly looted from Pakistan could be brought back.

&quot;But we did not want to be part of any political victimisation that Musharraf was trying to do at the time. So we made it clear that we would not go only after these three personalities.&quot;

He said that an agreement was reached with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Pakistani government and he was handed over a list of 200 people, including these three figures.

Read more: UK firm claims Nawaz offered bribe to stop probe of his offshore assets

As per the agreement, Moussavi said, the NAB was to provide him with the required documents on the basis of which Broadsheet was to trace the alleged corruption amount kept by these individuals abroad and also provide evidence to help bring the money back to Pakistan.

&quot;The NAB told us that we don&#39;t have funds. You should spend the money, trace the assets of these people, help us recover the stolen money and we will give you a 20% commission of that recovered amount,&quot; he claimed.

What did Broadsheet find against the Sharif family?

Moussavi said that they were tracing down the alleged embezzled money of Nawaz Sharif and had allegedly obtained relevant evidence from several bank accounts, many of which had been frozen.

&quot;You know the story of the necklace which was bought in Geneva, you might also know the story of the credit card used in Geneva but when Panama papers came to the fore, we got to know what we needed to know.&quot;

The Broadsheet CEO revealed that before he could start the process of freezing the identified bank accounts, he was fraudulently removed from the task.

It is pertinent to mention here that NAB had terminated its contract with Broadsheet in 2003.

Moussavi said that NAB had taken the stance that Broadsheet had not achieved the desired targets. However, according to him, the reality was contrary to NAB&#39;s position.

&quot;In fact, we had traced down and provided evidence to NAB of several bank accounts having millions of dollars. We had also asked them to file a written request to the relevant governments to recover the money,&quot; he added.

&#39;NAB leaked classified information&#39;

He claimed that Broadsheet had traced and informed NAB about a bank account belonging to former interior minister Aftab Khan Sherpao having an amount of $100,000 in New Jersey, United States and had also asked NAB to write to authorities in the US state so that the money could be brought back to Pakistan.

&quot;Do you know what the NAB did? Without taking us into confidence, they wrote to the authorities that we have no problem with this account so it should be reopened. The money was then withdrawn and Sherpao was made interior minister.&quot;

Moussavi alleged that NAB also leaked classified information about the pursuit of targets.

&quot;When we went after a target, we found out that he had already withdrawn the money from the account and closed it because someone inside the NAB had already warned him that we were going after him.&quot;

Why did Moussavi accuse the Sharif family of bribery?

The Broadsheet CEO asserted that a man named Anjum Dar approached him in 2012 and identified himself as Nawaz Sharif&#39;s nephew. &quot;The man said he wanted to talk about the information we have against the Sharif family.&quot;

Moussavi alleged that during the meeting, the man offered $25 million for not disclosing information and evidence regarding the Sharif family&#39;s assets, which he turned down, saying that any such amount should be offered through a conciliatory court.

When asked why the Sharif family contacted him about ten years after the completion of his investigation in 2003, Moussavi said: &quot;The Sharif family knew that when the matter would be brought before the court, the judge would get down to the bottom of the matter and thus once again the case of their alleged corruption will come to light which they did not want.&quot;

Nawaz Sharif&#39;s son Hussain Nawaz has denied the allegations in local media.

&#39;Someone from NAB provided information to Sharif family&#39;

When asked how the Sharif family came to know about the alleged evidence against the Sharif family when the information was only shared with NAB, Moussavi said that someone from within the NAB must have provided the information to Sharif family secretly.

He alleged that the bad intentions of NAB and Pakistan government were clear from day one. &quot;While we were searching for Nawaz Sharif&#39;s wealth abroad, Musharraf put him on a plane and sent him to Saudi Arabia,&quot; he added.

Moussavi said he had reiterated his intention to work with the Pakistani government in 2018 during the talks to reduce the compensation amount. However, few people involved in the negotiations wanted to get their &lsquo;cut&rsquo; as well. &quot;We will get you a new contract but how much we will get,&quot; he quoted unnamed official as saying. He said that all talks immediately came to a halt afterwards.

&quot;We told them that we will forget about the compensation amount... let&#39;s work on it again. We had also drafted the agreement but few elements from within Imran Khan&#39;s government once again sabotaged the effort,&quot; he alleged but added that he was still in talks with the government to resume work.

Pakistani representative asking for &#39;commission&#39; is not Shehzad Akbar: Moussavi 

Moussavi said that during a meeting in a London cafe in 2019, he told the representatives of the Pakistani government about a suspected bank amount having an amount of $1 billion. However, one of the representatives, he said, asked him how much &quot;commission&quot; he would get out of&nbsp;the deal.

Recently, some opposition parties in Pakistan have accused Adviser to Prime Minister on Accountability Barrister Shehzad Akbar for being this representative. However, Moussavi clarified that this person was not Shehzad Akbar.

&quot;I know Imran Khan,&quot; he said and added that he&#39;s an honest man and seemed to be serious about it [ongoing accountability drive] as well. &quot;However, I don&#39;t know if he is capable to do this job. I&#39;m not very optimistic after recent experience with the people in his government.&quot;

He said he would only agree to work with the Pakistani government if he was convinced that the &quot;corrupt elements within the NAB have been expelled and the government was serious about bringing back the looted wealth of Pakistan.&quot;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Gen Musharraf's ailing mother passes away in Dubai</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2280097/gen-musharrafs-ailing-mother-passes-away-in-dubai</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2280097/gen-musharrafs-ailing-mother-passes-away-in-dubai#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 21 16:19:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Aamir Khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2280097</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Begum Zareen was around 100 years old; funeral details will be announced soon, says spokesperson]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former president and chief of All Pakistan Muslims League (APML) General (retd) Pervez Musharaf&rsquo;s ailing mother has passed away in Dubai, his party spokesperson said on Friday.

Begum Zareen Musharraf died at the age of around 100 after prolonged illness, APML spokesperson Mehreen Malik told The Express Tribune.

She said the former military ruler received the news of passing of his elderly mother at a private hospital in Dubai, where he has been admitted for medical treatment since 2019.




Begum Zareen Musharraf sahiba m/o Former President Pervez Musharraf has passed away. She was an elegant lady blessed with great personality. Her departure is a big loss for Pakistan and Former President Pervez Musharraf and his family.

انا لللہ وانا الیہ راجعون
&mdash; Mehrene Malik Adam (@AdamMehrene) January 15, 2021



&nbsp;

Begum Zareen was born in India&rsquo;s Lucknow in 1920 and was settled in Dubai with her son.

The details of her funeral will be announced soon, said the spokesperson, adding that she might be laid to rest in Dubai as it was difficult for Musharraf to come to Pakistan due to his medical condition.

Family sources later confirmed that&nbsp;Gen (retd) Musharraf also wanted&nbsp;his&nbsp;mother&#39;s burial to&nbsp;take place in Dubai.



&nbsp;

The former president is suffering from amyloidosis, a rare disease caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body.

The 78-year old was diagnosed with the rare disease at a hospital in Dubai in 2019.

Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa offered&nbsp;condolences to the bereaved family over the sad demise, DG ISPR tweeted.




#COAS expresses heartfelt condolences on passing of mother of General Pervez Musharraf (Retired). May Allah bless the departed soul in eternal peace and give strength to the bereaved family, Aameen.
&mdash; DG ISPR (@OfficialDGISPR) January 15, 2021



&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>CJP takes up Musharraf's appeal today</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2162930/cjp-takes-musharrafs-appeal-today</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2162930/cjp-takes-musharrafs-appeal-today#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Feb 20 19:20:05 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2162930</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Ex-military ruler challenges SC’s refusal to entertain his plea against special court verdict in treason case]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Supreme Court will hear on Monday (today) an application filed by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf challenging the apex court registrar’s decision of refusing to entertain his appeal against a special court’s decision in the high treason case.

The former military ruler had filed an appeal in the apex court in January, seeking to overturn the special court’s verdict that found Musharraf guilty of high treason and handed him death sentence under Article 6 of the Constitution.

The registrar office had returned the plea on the grounds that unless the petitioner surrendered himself, his appeal could not be entertained. Order 23, Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, empowers it not to accept any petition unless the convict surrenders to the authorities.

The counsel for Musharraf then proceeded to file an appeal against the SC registrar’s decision.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Gulzar Ahmed will hear the arguments on the appeal in his chamber. The registrar office has issued a notice to Musharraf's counsel in this regard.

Petitioner moves IHC against PHC chief justice over Musharraf treason verdict

Musharraf's appeal

The appeal stated that Musharraf’s health declined significantly requiring specialised treatment abroad and he was given permission and approval of the court to leave the country on medical grounds.

Former president’s attorney Salman Safdar, while filing the appeal, stated that the requirement of surrendering Musharraf is not applicable owing to his health condition.

It also mentioned that the former military dictator tried to return to Pakistan but was unable to because of his deteriorating health.

The petition also stated that the former president ‘deserves’ that his appeal be entertained and heard by the Supreme Court.

It mentioned that Musharraf is neither a ‘fugitive from law’, nor is he a ‘proclaimed offender’ or ‘absconder’ – particularly because he left Pakistan for medical treatment, with permission of the complainant.

Musharraf was diagnosed with Cardiac Amyloidosis and has been unable to travel because of his health.

“It is not a case of ‘jail break’ or ‘fleeing from court’ after hearing the conviction and sentence.”

Musharraf challenges SC registrar’s decision to turn down plea against conviction

“Moreover, the impugned judgment and sentence was announced in his absence, therefore, a direct appeal should also be entertainable in his absence.”

In January, the Registrar Office returned Musharraf’s plea after raising an objection under Supreme Court Rules 1980 that says a convict has to surrender to the authorities before filing an appeal.

An attorney for the former military confirmed the development, saying that his client can appeal against the Registrar Office’s decision within 30 days.

Interestingly, Musharraf filed the appeal in the apex court even though a three-judge bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has already declared unconstitutional the filing of high treason case against him, formation of the Special Court as well as its proceedings, leading to the abolition of the death penalty handed down to him on Dec 17.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf challenges SC registrar’s decision to turn down plea against conviction</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2155957/musharraf-challenges-sc-registrars-decision-turn-plea-conviction</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2155957/musharraf-challenges-sc-registrars-decision-turn-plea-conviction#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 20 10:37:28 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2155957</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The registrar had argued that the ex-president had to turn himself in before his plea could be taken up by apex court]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf on Thursday challenged Supreme Court Registrar's decision of refusing to entertain his appeal against the special court’s decision in the high treason case.

The appeal stated that Musharraf’s health declined significantly requiring specialised treatment abroad and he was given permission and approval of the court to leave the country on medical grounds.

Former president’s attorney Salman Safdar, while filing the appeal, stated that the requirement of surrendering Musharraf is not applicable owing to his health condition.

It also mentioned that the former military dictator tried to return to Pakistan but was unable to because of his deteriorating health.

The petition also stated that the former president ‘deserves’ that his appeal be entertained and heard by the Supreme Court.

It mentioned that Musharraf is neither a ‘fugitive from law’, nor is he a ‘proclaimed offender’ or ‘absconder’ – particularly because he left Pakistan for medical treatment, with permission of the complainant.

Musharraf was diagnosed with Cardiac Amyloidosis and has been unable to travel because of his health.

SC to entertain Musharraf’s plea only after he turns himself in

“It is not a case of ‘jail break’ or ‘fleeing from court’ after hearing the conviction and sentence”

“Moreover, the impugned judgment and sentence was announced in his absence, therefore, a direct appeal should also be entertainable in his absence.”

In January, the Registrar Office returned Musharraf's plea after raising an objection under Supreme Court Rules 1980 that says a convict has to surrender to the authorities before filing an appeal.

An attorney for the former military confirmed the development, saying that his client can appeal against the Registrar Office’s decision within 30 days.

Interestingly, Musharraf filed the appeal in the apex court even though a three-judge bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has already declared unconstitutional the filing of high treason case against him, formation of the Special Court as well as its proceedings, leading to the abolition of the death penalty handed down to him on Dec 17.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The case of civilian supremacy</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2140332/case-civilian-supremacy</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2140332/case-civilian-supremacy#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jan 20 13:57:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[shahzad chaudhry]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2140332</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The two commanders were no wimps either but there wasn’t a hint of a wince. Civilian supremacy ruled]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[When ZAB was the President he invited the army and the air force commanders-in-chief to his office, handed them over to a waiting Mustafa Khar asking him to ride the two to Lahore. It was March 1972. On the way, the two — still in uniform as they were being taken away — were informed by Governor Khar that they were no longer the commanders-in-chief and stood removed by Bhutto. New chiefs were installed soon after. No issues. The two stood retired, got on with their lives and now are in their heavenly abode. This was right after an over thirteen-year long period of military rule when the military wasn’t any less assured of itself despite the debacle of 1971.

The two commanders were no wimps either but there wasn’t a hint of a wince. Civilian supremacy ruled. ZAB took the commander-in-chief system away from the military and instead instituted the more cooperative and consensual chief of staff system, to not only infuse better coordination but also to take the direct control of the troops away from the commanders-in-chief. Now the President was the supreme commander and the chiefs were appointed by him after due consultation with the prime minister. It more or less replicated the chief of staff system in the US military. It continues to this day despite having been through two martial laws with powers to alter the constitution reposed in the person of the two army chiefs by their respective parliaments and supreme courts.

Neither restored direct powers of the military chiefs. When the change happened under ZAB, many in the military understood the real purpose behind it but took it in their stride. Civilians were still supreme. Then many years later, in 1998, when Nawaz Sharif — no match to ZAB, but even him — felt that the army chief Jahangir Karamat had stepped out of line when he spoke in an academic setting of the need for a national security council to better coordinate issues between the military and the government and to coordinate policy, he was asked to resign. He did without batting an eye. There hasn’t been a general more committed to democracy and its need for the country than Jahangir Karamat, but he had to go and he went. And then the Sharifs got Musharraf. Junejo under Zia in a martial law setting bridled the generals to an austere existence and curtailed their perks. It was followed to a tee.

It only changed after the martial law was over in 1988. In each of the cases when chiefs are appointed by supreme civilians they pick from among the top few, the one they think will serve them best. Not always necessarily the best for the army or other services but who seems best to their purpose. The military never gets to choose its own commanders, and rightly so; the discretion is of the prime minister. And yet the civilian leadership must doubt its own supremacy? Most times when a chief is chosen there will emerge stories on each of the hopefuls which will rise up the grapevine bringing to disrepute those under consideration.

By the time one takes over, the dice is already loaded against the ‘process’ and the implications arising out of deliberate leaks. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars; but in ourselves, that we are the underlings.” ZAB wasn’t an underling and as long as he was in power he held sway over everything else. There’s a lesson in there for those who incessantly pine for civilian supremacy without much introspection. Bhutto did not need the reassurance of his position, power or supremacy.

He was a different man; knowledgeable, educated, informed and imbued with ways of the world, governance and the systems of government; confident, assured and with a clear vision of how and why he wanted things done his way. He didn’t need the bureaucracy to guide him, he guided them instead to what he wanted done by them. He wasn’t corrupt, nor compromised and thus always had the moral courage on his side. With these strengths he overshadowed others, even the mighty military.

Anyone with these credentials doesn’t need to seek supremacy ordained in the books or notions. It is inherent in his wisdom and purpose. Anyone with those attributes will enthuse supremacy. Anyone lesser will need help; that is when supremacy stands compromised.

ZAB was stabbed in the back by his fellow politicians. Zia intervened at their behest after the PNA had brought ZAB’s government to a halt. Once in, the army doesn’t know the way out and soon magicians of law and the politics will show them the way to stay a bit longer. That doesn’t take away the malice of military take-overs, neither justifies the act, except contextualise to form the full picture. Partial invocation of history is as malicious and selfserving as is any act that falls foul of the logic of democracy and rule of law.

Lies fragment and insidious shielding of those only perpetuate the rot. Musharraf’s take-over was a consequence of a tussle between two people which made it graver and aberrational.

Both were at fault; one by usurping supremacy, the other by quixotic imposition of it. The treason case against Musharraf was rooted in such personalised animosity.

It was a weak case motivated by vengeance for the man. Constitutional altruism was only a sham. It wasn’t a surprise that it got thrown out. Musharraf was at fault on 12 October, 1999 but wasn’t arraigned for it. Instead the entire politico-legal system condoned his act. Such are the distortions. Defending distorted justice is as repulsive as usurping power from an elected government. When the two mainstream political parties were ridiculed for voting the extension of the incumbent army chief — allegedly damaging the ‘movement’ for civilian supremacy — the PML-N was questioned for ‘not standing up to the military’.

To conflate ‘democracy’ with ‘standing up to the military’ is insidious. One stands up to enemy’s military, not your own. If in its third iteration after 2008, there is still a doubt on democracy’s efficacy, it may help to introspect. Merely blaming and maligning the military neither makes democracy credible nor efficacious. Superior democracy alone will ensue civilian supremacy.

Crying wolf does not. Pakistan is in the midst of existential challenges. When a part of the ruling system is found inadequate others will fill in. Pakistan’s sustenance as a state and a nation, and its sociopolitical ethos, defined in its democratic structures, remains a common cause.

That is when cooperative institutional harmony and an effective decision cycle will help retain the integrity of what keeps us buoyant. More effective and efficient the democratic structures, more weight will they carry. ZAB led by the force of his caliber and personality; others can do it by making democracy functional and deliver what it is meant to winning it greater credibility. Civilian supremacy resides in a superior democracy. We’ve got to discern how to do make democracy perform better and it is not in ‘taking the military on’.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 19th, 2020.

Like Opinion &amp; Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>LHC quashes Musharraf case verdict, says special court formation 'unconstitutional'</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2136166/lhc-reserves-verdict-musharrafs-petition-challenging-establishment-trial-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2136166/lhc-reserves-verdict-musharrafs-petition-challenging-establishment-trial-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 20 09:35:57 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2136166</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Special court sentenced to death former military ruler in high treason case in December last year]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday quashed the verdict given by the special court in the Musharraf high treason case and declared the formation of the bench as "unconstitutional".

A three-member full bench of the LHC, headed by Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, resumed hearing of the petition today.

Musharraf was sentenced to death on December 17, 2019, by the special court in a high treason case filed in 2013.

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A Khan appeared on behalf of the government and presented a summary and record of the special court's formation.

"The complaint was not filed according to law. The special court which convicted Musharraf was formed without the approval of the cabinet,” said the AAG earlier today as the court resumed hearing of the petitions.

Musharraf not given fair trial in treason case: attorney general

He also informed the court that the federal government had directed the interior secretary to register a complaint against the former president.

The former president's counsel, Azhar Siddiq, also pointed out that "not only was the complaint illegal, the formation of the special court and the subsequent verdict were also not in accordance to law".

Justice Naqvi had then continued and had asked: "What is a constitution? ! A 12-page book. But a Constitution is your law and such a situation comes under emergency," said Justice Naqvi.

"An emergency is part of the Constitution. If a situation emerges, and the government imposes emergency, so would the government be also tried under a treason case? An emergency, if imposed, would be reviewed if it is or not in line with the Constitution. A precedent was set, so anyone who would find it suitable would do it."

“Giving respect to the AAG, the parliament included the word of suspending the Constitution in Article 6. By including three words, you changed the status of the entire constitution. With this, you cannot be granted an emergency," added Justice Naqvi.

The LHC had later reserved the judgment on Musharraf’s appeal after completion of the arguments.

Musharraf convicted 

In December last year, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was convicted of high treason and sentenced to death by a special court in an unprecedented trial delayed by the absence of the septuagenarian former military ruler, who has been out of the country since 2016.

It is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a former army chief was tried and sentenced under Article 6 of the Constitution, which states, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

Mehwish Hayat says Pervez Musharraf deserves the opportunity to be heard

The charges against Musharraf – who was sentenced in absentia on Tuesday – stem from his imposition of a state of emergency in 2007, after which dozens of judges were placed under house arrest or sacked, sparking widespread street protests by lawyers.

The trial continued in Musharraf’s long absence and the bench was reconstituted six times as judges recused themselves from hearing the case, resulting in the delay.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>LHC questions trying Musharraf for treason in absentia</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2134597/lhc-questions-trying-musharraf-treason-absentia</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2134597/lhc-questions-trying-musharraf-treason-absentia#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 20 19:17:33 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2134597</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Barrister Zafar says cabinet’s approval was not sought for filing the case]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday questioned whether there was any precedent where a person was tried in absentia in a treason case as well as the legality of the formation of the special court, which handed the death sentence to the former military ruler.

A three-judge bench – headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and comprising Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir – heard Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s pleas, challenging his conviction in high treason, establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government.

The special court had sentenced the former military ruler to death in absentia for treason on December 17 last year over his 2007 imposition of emergency rule. The high treason charge had been pending since 2013, while Musharraf was allowed to leave Pakistan in 2016 and is in Dubai.

At the onset of the proceedings, Barrister Ali Zafar, who has been appointed as the amicus curiae by the court, apprised the bench that there were several loopholes in the procedure adopted to constitute the special court.

Justice Mazahar Naqvi asked whether the matter had even been on the agenda of any cabinet meeting.

Barrister Zafar replied that the case was filed against Musharraf merely on the directions of the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, as “there is no record of the matter being on the agenda of the cabinet”.
“A case cannot be filed under Article 6 without the approval of the cabinet,” he added.

To another query, Barrister Zafar apprised the bench that on June 21, 2013, the attorney general had sent a summary to the then prime minister suggesting a case under Article 6 be prepared against Musharraf. On December 29, 2013, the interior secretary was given the authority to file a complaint, he added.

Barrister Zafar argued that the case against Musharraf was not prepared in accordance with law.

Musharraf moves LHC against treason verdict

Justice Naqvi asked what was the procedure for the appointment of the judges, who heard the treason case?

“Was there any criteria under which the judges were appointed? On what basis were the judges appointed? Was there anything in black and white or everything was decided on just phone calls?” Justice Naqvi further asked.

The representative of the interior ministry apprised the court that the Ministry of Law and Justice had written to the Supreme Court registrar seeking names of judges for formation of the special court.
“It is interesting that the federal government constituted the special court but did not decide how the criminal proceedings would be held,” Zafar apprised the bench.

He argued that it was necessary to amend the 1973 and 1976 laws pertaining to treason in Article 6 after the 18th Amendment, contending that though a new offence was added in Article 6, the manner of punishment was not decided.

Justice Naqvi remarked, “Nothing is mentioned relating to Article 6 in the charge sheet that had been filed.”

Zafar argued, “The Supreme Court did not describe the relation of the action with Article 6 but had said it was an unconstitutional step.”
Zafar apprised the bench of the trial, which was conducted in Musharraf’s absence.

Justice Naqvi remarked, “If a person is not attending a trial, the court can declare him a proclaimed offender, but which law allows awarding punishment to a person without hearing him properly?”

Justice Naqvi, referring to the special court's verdict, pointed out that it means everyone who supported Musharraf at that time of the act (abrogating the Constitution in 2007 and imposing emergency rule) could be accused of abetting.

Barrister Zafar replied that under Article 6, no one could be convicted alone, adding it would be unconstitutional if proceedings were carried out against selected people.

Justice Jahangir asked whether the special court could summon other suspects if the federal government named them in the case.
Barrister Zafar replied in the negative.

The court adjourned the proceedings of the case until Monday (January 13).]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf moves LHC against treason verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2125780/high-treason-musharraf-challenges-special-courts-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2125780/high-treason-musharraf-challenges-special-courts-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 19 05:54:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Mohammad Haroon]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2125780</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former military dictator Pervez Musharraf moves LHC against verdict sentencing him to death]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has moved the Lahore High Court against his conviction by a special court for high treason, requesting the LHC to set aside the judgment, which he claims, is “a mix of anomalies and contradictory statements”.

Musharraf filed the 89-page petition on Friday through his counsel Azhar Siddique, 10 days after the three-judge special court – headed by Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth – awarded him the death penalty for abrogating the Constitution and imposing emergency rule in the country on Nov 3, 2007.

The septuagenarian former president – who has been out of the country since 2016 – had earlier petitioned the LHC to stay the special court proceedings which was referred by an LHC bench to the high court chief justice for formation of a full bench on the same day the special court issued its short order.

The LHC full bench – headed by Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi – will take up that petition on Jan 9.

In the latest petition, Musharraf claims that the treason case verdict is “a mix of anomalies and contradictory statements” and that the special court – which was formed in Nov 2013 – “rapidly and hurriedly wrapped up the trial which was far from conclusion”.

“The special court […] announced an award of capital punishment to the applicant without examining the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (power to examine the accused).

“The importance of examining the accused in a criminal trial is enormous and any lapse, failure or omission to fulfill this requirement adversely affects the prosecution case,” says the petition.

It further claims that the special court has not taken into account the fact that the petitioner [Musharraf] did not take any action detrimental to national interest and that the offence of high treason could not be established from the evidence presented against him.

It has particularly challenged paragraph 66 of the detailed judgment authored by the presiding judge of the special court, which was described as “unprecedented and despicable” by Federal Law Minister Barrister Farogh Naseem.

Para 66, which came to be known as “grisly three-day hanging rider” to Musharraf’s sentence, says the court directs “the law enforcement agencies to strive their level best to apprehend the fugitive/convict and to ensure that the punishment is inflicted as per law and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk, Islamabad, Pakistan, and be hanged for three days”.

The petitioner says that the presiding judge has crossed all limits while writing the rider as our religion, law and the Constitution do not allow humiliation of a dead body. “The honourable respective president of the special court has crossed all religious moral, civil and constitutional limits, while ruthlessly, irreligiously, unlawfully, unrealistically awarding a debilitating, humiliating, unprecedented and against the dignity of a person sentence".

“Transparent trial is a right of every citizen as per the Constitution. I was kept deprived of transparent trial by the special court,” says the petitioner.

Musharraf, 76, is the first former army chief to be charged with treason in Pakistan. The military has strongly reacted to the special court verdict, saying it has caused “pain and anguish” in the rank and file of the armed forces. It also said that “the due legal process seems to have been ignored” in the proceedings.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The ‘but-if’ epidemic</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2124348/the-but-if-epidemic</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2124348/the-but-if-epidemic#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Dec 19 04:05:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Syed Hamza Ali Shah]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2124348</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Making the judiciary controversial at every opportune moment is bound to create instability]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The recent court ruling of Musharraf’s death sentence has sent ripples across the country. It would not be an overstatement to say that not many expected such a heavy capital punishment to be handed out to an ex-military dictator. But, as is the case with other high-profile cases, the recent judgment has caused polarisation among the various segments of society. There are a lot of “buts” and “ifs” being hurled around in reaction to the judgment.

The army took no time in openly expressing its reservations regarding the punishment handed down to its former chief. This reaction comes in stark contrast to its earlier stance where the army repeatedly distanced itself from the actions of Musharraf. It reiterated that the actions of an “individual” do not represent the whole institution. The army, in showing its disappointment, stressed that due process had not been followed while deciding the merits of the case. It urged that the rule of law, according to the “Constitution”, be followed. It contended how a person who fought wars to defend this country can be branded as a “traitor”.

Now let’s turn our attention to other Musharraf sympathisers — those who believe him being singled out and victimised. Popular opinion among them suggests that the case was hurriedly decided, without giving the defendant the right of defence. There are certain quarters that go as far as saying that the recently-retired chief justice of Pakistan expedited the outcome of the case to create a personal legacy — one that would make him the only CJP brave enough to punish a military dictator. Others are questioning as to why the abettors of Musharraf, mainly former PM Shaukat Aziz and former law minister Zaid Hamid, those who helped him abrogate the Constitution, are not being indicted. Here again, it is the “buts” and “ifs” that are being emphasised.

Even the Musharraf, under the stewardship of PM Imran Khan, who in the past claimed that Musharraf was guilty of high treason, is finding faults with the recent judgment. The irony is that, at first the government wanted the court to delay the proceedings of the case because they feared Musharraf might go scot-free. Now that the verdict has been passed against the former dictator, the government finds it to be seriously flawed — in essence, advocating for Musharraf. It is incomprehensible to think that the government, being the prosecutor, is openly criticising the court ruling.

Major opposition parties have welcomed it as a “landmark” judgment — one that is going to usher in a paradigm shift in favour of a strong democracy. The PPP and the PML-N are, in some shape or form, trying to take credit for the conviction of Musharraf. But it begs the question: what concrete steps were taken by the two parties to prosecute Musharraf during their respective tenures? The PML-N might argue that it was its government that initiated the case against the ex-army chief. While that contention is true, the Nawaz Sharif government allowed Musharraf to leave the country albeit under the premise of medical concerns and the momentum of the case soon fizzled out. No concrete steps were taken to ensure that the defendant was brought back to face court proceedings.

In another classic case of “but-if”, certain observers have questioned the credibility of the courts over this judgment. They cite the “inaction” of the judiciary over the matter of the attack of lawyers on the Punjab Institute of Cardiology. It is argued that while the judiciary was extremely active in making sure Musharraf’s case was wrapped up quickly, no action has been taken against the lawyers who committed a heinous act by attacking a hospital. Even media analysts have been stressing this point in talk shows. While the argument of indecisiveness against the lawyers has its merits, it is completely unrelated to the high treason case of Musharraf. Yes, action needs to be taken against the lawyers who committed an atrocious act, but we need to ask ourselves whether an unrelated case should undermine the outcome of Musharraf’s case.

In the aftermath of the death penalty being laid down to Musharraf, there were cries about this judgment potentially leading to a clash between institutions and derailing democracy. Whether plausible or not, should the judgment be passed on hypothetical repercussions or the merits of the case? Should concessions be handed out or should the rule of law prosper?

There is an underlying theme that accompanies almost all high-profile cases in Pakistan — nobody takes the judgment at its face value and instead focuses on the conditionalities. Our nation suffers from the “but-if” epidemic. We only need to look at the recent history to shed light upon this predicament. Be it Nawaz Sharif’s Panama case, Jehangir Tareen’s disqualification, or Imran Khan’s acquittal, each and every judgment is politicised while merits of the cases take a backseat. No-one is arguing that political elements are not involved in deciding cases in our country, but at the same time we need to call a spade a spade. If a crime is proven to be committed, there are no two ways about it. Unless we as a nation learn to acknowledge court rulings at face value, we will remain divided and bound to infighting. Sometimes it is beneficial to take a simplistic view of things and shun the complexities. Making the judiciary controversial at every opportune moment is bound to create instability.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 25th, 2019.

Like Opinion &amp; Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>LHC full bench constituted to hear Musharraf's plea against treason trial</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2124301/lhc-full-bench-constituted-hear-musharrafs-plea-treason-trial</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2124301/lhc-full-bench-constituted-hear-musharrafs-plea-treason-trial#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 19 18:34:56 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2124301</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler had challenged the formation of special court the day it awarded him death sentence]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday constituted a full bench to hear a petition filed by former military ruler retired general Pervez Musharraf challenging the trial against him and formation of a special court that awarded him death sentence on the same day the plea was moved.

The special court – comprising Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim – sentenced Musharraf, 76, to death on December 17 after finding him guilty of high treason for abrogating the Constitution in 2007.

Justice Amir Bhatti and Justice Masood Jahangir will be the part of the three-member full bench which will be headed by Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi.

The new bench will hear the petition on January 9, 2020.

Musharraf, in his petition, had requested the LHC to halt the special court proceedings in his absentia until he recuperates and appears before the court.

During the proceeding earlier this month, Justice Naqvi asked the LHC Chief Justice Sardar Shamim Khan to constitute a full bench to hear the petition rather than staying the special court.

If Musharraf dies, hang corpse at D-Chowk: Justice Seth

The detailed verdict, which was issued on December 19, stirred a controversy after Justice Seth's ruling that the former president should be hanged at Islamabad's D-Chowk for three days if he dies before his execution.

“We direct the Law Enforcement Agencies to strive their level best to apprehend the fugitive/convict to ensure that the punishment is inflicted as per law and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk, Islamabad, Pakistan and be hanged for 03 days,” ruled Justice Waqar Seth – the presiding judge.

The treason charge against Musharraf stem from his imposition of emergency rule on November 3, 2007 after which dozens of judges were placed under house arrest or sacked, sparking widespread street protests.

Soon after the ruling, both the government and the army had expressed ‘anger’ over a specific paragraph 66 of the detailed judgement and termed it “unlawful”, “inhuman” and “unconstitutional”.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Court reissues arrest warrants</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123804/court-reissues-arrest-warrants</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123804/court-reissues-arrest-warrants#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 19 03:44:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2123804</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) chairperson Syed Mustafa Kamal appeared in court along with several other suspects]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[An accountability court once again issued on Monday arrest warrants for absconding suspects in a case pertaining to the illegal allotment of coastal government land.

Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) chairperson Syed Mustafa Kamal appeared in court along with several other suspects. The court, once again issuing arrest warrants for fugitive suspects, adjourned the hearing until January 17.

Speaking to the media about the Musharraf verdict, Kamal said that the requirements of justice were not fulfilled in the verdict. He further said that former presidents Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq should also be symbolically hanged and all the clauses of Article 6 should be executed.

The PSP chairperson said that the political parties protesting the court decision should know that the special court was formulated with the approval of the parliament. He claimed that one party was presenting it as an ethnic matter, adding that the entire country was reacting to the verdict so it should not be seen as an ethnic issue.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2019.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>PTI dithers on appealing high treason case verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123885/pti-govt-dithers-appealing-high-treason-case-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123885/pti-govt-dithers-appealing-high-treason-case-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 19 03:41:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2123885</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[One group in PTI is said to be opposed to approaching Supreme Judicial Council]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government seems to be in two minds whether or not to file an appeal against the detailed judgment in the high treason case against former military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf, it emerged on Monday.

“Not only this, but it is also undecided about filing a reference against Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth for authoring paragraph No 66 of the detailed judgment,” sources told The Express Tribune.

Justice Seth headed the three-judge special court that convicted Gen Musharraf and awarded him death sentence on five counts.

This shows the level of indecision within the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government as only days after the pronouncement of the verdict, top functionaries had told the media that the Ministry of Law and Justice has commenced work on the reference to be filed against Justice Seth.

The sources say one group in the PTI is vehemently opposed to the idea of approaching the Supreme Judicial Council or filing an appeal on Musharraf’s behalf, citing legal hitches as well as the political cost.

“They are of the opinion that the move will be embarrassing for Prime Minister Imran Khan, who had all along been a vocal proponent of Musharraf to be charged under Article 6 of the Constitution,” the sources added.

If Musharraf dies, hang corpse at D-Chowk: Justice Seth

Also, PTI leaders Ali Muhammad Khan and Nadeem Afzal Chan are conspicuous by their silence over the main judgment against Musharraf which can be inferred as their tacit approval of the judgment.

Even Prime Minister Imran Khan has not yet given any statement on social media or the mainstream media against the special court verdict.

One section within the PTI has raised the question as to how the government can challenge the special court ruling when it is the complainant in the case.

They, however, say the federation will be respondent in case it files an appeal in the treason case verdict and can support his stance during the proceedings.

It is learned that Musharraf's lawyer, Salman Safdar, is expected to file an appeal against the treason case verdict this week. It is not yet clear, however, whether the appeal will be filed by Musharraf or his political party -- All Pakistan Muslim League.

Moreover, some government functionaries want the renowned lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, to argue the case in the apex court.

A former attorney general for Pakistan says that only an aggrieved person can approach the apex court for the expungement of the special court's remarks.

He wonders whether an appeal can be filed in respect of Para 66 of the judgment as it is not the operative part of the majority judgment.

A senior government official, however, says that the Musharraf case is not a big issue for the executive as compared to the army chief's tenure extension case wherein the apex court had given the government six months to carry out legislation.

He admits that a review petition has limited scope and it can only be filed when clarity is required and that larger bench will be constituted to hear the matter.

‘Mentally unfit, incompetent’: Govt to move SJC against judge over Musharraf treason verdict

Under the Supreme Court Rules, those judges who authored the original verdict hear the review petition.

It is also learned that one section within the PTI has been active against Law Minister Dr Farogh Naseem and Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan regarding their failure to deliver in high-profile cases related to the security establishment.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Jibran Nasir and Mansha Pasha get engaged in an intimate ceremony</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123360/jibran-nasir-mansha-pasha-get-engaged-intimate-cermony</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123360/jibran-nasir-mansha-pasha-get-engaged-intimate-cermony#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 19 08:11:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Entertainment Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Life &amp; Style]]></category><category><![CDATA[Gossip]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2123360</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The event was closed knit with only a handful of celebrities in attendance]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Mansha Pasha and Jibran Nasir held their engagement ceremony on Sunday. Videos and pictures of the day-time event have been doing rounds on social media since then, that has left fans and peers of the couple gushing,

https://www.instagram.com/p/B6YSEuhA18Y/

The blushing bride turned heads in a delicate pink ensemble by Omorose. Meanwhile Jibran cut a handsome figure in a traditional white kurta pairing it with a classic Sindhi Ajarak. The social activist and Laal Kabootar actor were seen sharing plenty of tender and cute moments with one another.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B6YcybuFnaJ/

https://twitter.com/Monalogist/status/1208766211242307584
https://twitter.com/beenishjaved/status/1208727225543069696

The event was attended by various individuals from the showbiz community. Actors Junaid Khan and Zhalay Sarhadi were seen dancing in one video. Shazeb Khanzada and comedian Faiza Saleem also attended the event.

Mahira Khan who didn't attend the event, congratulated on social media.

https://twitter.com/TheMahiraKhan/status/1208986347979059200

"Congratulations Mansha Pasha and Jibran Nasir.  May you both grow stronger together, may you be blessed with joy and peace. Sending you love and duas" tweeted Mahira Khan.

The two are said to tie the knot next year. Just two days before the event, an invitation card for the engagement of Mansha  and Jibran  circulated on various social media pages. Earlier this year a video that shows the two dancing together had surfaced, which led  many to speculate that the social activist and actor were in a relationship.

Have something to add to the story? Share in the comments below]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>MQM-P takes to the streets to protest against Musharraf verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123062/mqm-p-takes-streets-protest-musharraf-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2123062/mqm-p-takes-streets-protest-musharraf-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 19 18:13:14 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2123062</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[We are not forgetful of the services he has offered to Pakistan, says Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[We have always appreciated the courts of Pakistan, but we fear that the public is losing its trust in the courts and the judicial system, Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) convener Dr Khalid Maqbool Siddiqi said on Sunday.

He was addressing a rally staged here to protest against the special court verdict, sentencing to death former president Pervez Musharraf in a high treason case.

The MQM-P leadership expressed solidarity with the former president at Liaquatabad Flyover on Sunday, with protesters, including women and children, beginning to gather at the spot at 2pm. Holding up placards, participants shouted slogans demanding justice for General Musharraf.

"Today, the people of Karachi are out on the streets again," said Siddiqi, claiming that the number of participants showed that the writing was on the wall. "The court issued such a verdict and used such language that is extra-judicial and against Sharia - the verdict has not just disrespected a person but the entire nation, and we have the right to object to it and appeal against it."

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="625"] PHOTOS: EXPRESS[/caption]

Mentioning that Pakistan was established after two million people sacrificed their lives, Siddiqi said that Musharraf too had encountered danger and risked his life to serve the army and the country for 40 years. "We are not forgetful of the services Musharraf has offered to Pakistan," he maintained, declaring the verdict “controversial”.

Adding that Musharraf had boosted the economy and liberated the media, Siddiqi pointed out that despite being a dictator, the economy had been better in his regime than in any of the democratic regimes of the country.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="625"] PHOTO: EXPRESS[/caption]

"The people of Karachi, belonging to traders associations, social organisations and different ethnicities, have shown unity by gathering in support of Musharraf," said MQM-P senior deputy convener Amir Khan, adding that the protest had proven the party to be organised, firm and a major political force when faced with justice.

Expressing his belief that they would get justice from the courts, he said, "We expect that the courts give justice to Pervez Musharraf, who made India tremble during the Kargil War”. He added that calling such a general a traitor reflected "a shameful and vengeful mind-set”.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="625"] PHOTO: EXPRESS[/caption]

Meanwhile, Karachi mayor Waseem Akhtar said that the confidence of the demonstrators showed that the public had made its decision. "We too are against the violation of law, but Article 6 should be used correctly," he said. "The violator should not be the only one punished; rather, everyone involved in the violation should be tried."

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="625"] PHOTO: EXPRESS[/caption]

MQM-P leader Faisal Sabzwari also said that the courts should reconsider the verdict given by the special court. "The comment regarding the hanging of the body at D-Chowk smells of discrimination," he claimed, adding that verdicts given in the past should also be considered in Musharraf's case.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="625"] PHOTO: EXPRESS[/caption]

He went on to question the state of democracy in Sindh, saying that even Garhi Khuda Bakhsh and Larkana, strongholds of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party, were in terrible condition. He claimed that the plundering of Sindh had not stopped in 12 years.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>One man’s hero is another’s villain</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122613/one-mans-hero-anothers-villain</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122613/one-mans-hero-anothers-villain#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 19 05:44:20 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[muhammad.ali.ehsan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2122613</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[When democracy decays it goes backwards and when it does that it takes the country with it]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[No society can progress if it cannot have order. Many things contribute towards the sustenance of an order in a society but the three that eat it up the most are — unequal distribution of power, weak institutions, and the failure and helplessness of the order itself to adjust when the circumstances change. Obviously order never adjusts itself and the “lack of adjustment” remains most essentially a human (leadership) failure. In the post-Musharraf era there has been a phenomenal change in the identity of both politics and the military in this country. A gradual balance of power between the politics and military returned and despite some “political tremors”, politics on the whole moved forward and the assemblies for the first time in the history of Pakistani politics completed their tenures. Politics also engaged in executing some constitutional amendments and the distribution of power concentrated in one person (the president) was handed over to the Parliament.

After 2008, there were political, economic as well as security issues but the pillars of the state were working within the boundaries defined by the Constitution and there was this fair and admirable return of balance of power between the institutions in this country. With a few minor exceptions here and there all institutions worked within the boundaries established by the Constitution. Underpinning this balance of power was the media which now defined “the changed circumstances” in which the order had to operate. Unlike the past nothing could be shelved or brushed under the carpet and nothing that politics or the military did could be hidden from the watchful eyes of the media. The forced circumstances had brought in a change of order — forced because of the War on Terror which highlighted our huge internal and external vulnerabilities and if it was not for resilience and sacrifices of our law enforcement agencies and our entire society which gave rise to our newborn nationalism, we couldn’t have won this war.

If the order in the society could have changed for good and it had adjusted favourably to the changing circumstances, we would have benefited a lot as a nation. The victory in the War on Terror was giving us an opportunity — it was becoming the seam that was stitching the nation together with the state. But those driving the order made the mistake of not adjusting to it; instead of cashing on the opportunity and promoting good civic nationalism we continued on our path of sustaining our politics through bad ethnic nationalism. The order that could have evolved was allowed to decay.

When democracy decays it goes backwards and when it does that it takes the country with it. The problem of this country was not what General Musharraf did or did not. The problem of this country was when the opportunity had come knocking on the door of politics it didn’t extract the benefit of the “changed circumstances”. It is said that when the rulers uphold their bargain (the bargain of ruling in the public interest) in the social contract that binds them with the ruled, then national identity supersedes all other identities (religious, ethnic, sectarian, and tribal). The drivers of the order (democracy) in the changed circumstances had their political cart driving the military horse. All they needed to do was drive it well, even this they couldn’t do and motivated by greed, religion and power, the drivers failed to adjust and made mistakes. The result of those mistakes is pretty much evident in the social, political, economic and security conditions of this country. Had the mistakes not been committed, would the two major political parties that showcase “dynastic rule” have many members of their families facing corruption charges, with few in jail, others on bail and many having reached the safe shores of Britain?

Today when you mention the word Britain in Pakistan it does not bring to mind Brexit but Oliver Cromwell. This is because of paragraph 66 of the famous ruling by the special court on General Musharraf’s treason case. Before the Honourable Judge of the special court in his judgment quoted from British history in his famous paragraph, our now retired chief justice of the Supreme Court had done the same in the detailed judgment of General Bajwa’s extension case by writing, “I understand that democratic maturity of our nation has reached a stage where this court can proclaim that as declared by Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke of England in Commendam case in the year 1616 regarding powers of King James I, ‘However high you may be, the law is above you’.”

One person’s hero is another person’s villain — a reality that all of us are well aware of but when the judgments of the judges, including some of the superfluous remarks that don’t respect this reality, then create more confusions and divisions instead of harmony and unity in the country. General Musharraf had his flaws and his inconsistencies and as much as many hate him for his “anti-democracy” there are many that still love him for his brand of patriotism, his unwavering loyalty and his selfless and restless energy all utilised for the creation of a better democracy and a better country. Not tried for his original sin of abrogating the Constitution in 1999 for reasons best known to our judiciary, General Musharraf was tried for a lesser crime of holding the Constitution in abeyance in 2007.

Eventually, the special court didn’t touch the subject of “aiders and abettors” and in a charged up judicial environment of “justice hurried is justice buried” gave a judicial verdict that many senior lawyers like Aitzaz Ahsan are looking at as “judicial nonsense”.

Our Islamic history is filled with the examples of generosity and sympathetic treatment and none is more evident than the one conducted by a Muslim general of the 12th century, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi, who after 88 years of Christian control on the city of Jerusalem, retook it from them. He relived the moments of the Conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Umar in 638AD and pardoned the entire presence of 60,000 men, women and children in the city. The judges would do well to give the examples of what our religion teaches us — examples of generosity and sympathetic treatment instead of examples that speak of inhumanity and cruelty.

Lastly, Oliver Cromwell “whose body was dug out, beheaded and hanged for three days” was selected as one of the 10 greatest Britons of all time in a 2002 BBC poll. Surely, history has a funny way of coming back and biting those who try to manipulate it. Maybe tomorrow history judges General Musharraf as a great hero and his “facilitators” as the actual villains — who knows?

Published in The Express Tribune, December 22nd, 2019.

Like Opinion &amp; Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Why Musharraf deserved better</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122610/musharraf-deserved-better</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122610/musharraf-deserved-better#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 19 05:36:02 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[shahzad chaudhry]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2122610</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Declaration of Emergency was a perfectly legal measure provisioned under the Constitution and the law]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[General Pervez Musharraf made his share of mistakes. As the army chief, he entered a near-war without informing the government of the day and seeking the approval of his prime minister. The deterrence held barely when he devised space for a near or limited war with India in Kargil. It compromised Pakistan’s strategic refrain that, “no war is possible between India and Pakistan for fear of a nuclear confrontation”. India on the other hand, looking for space for a limited war to assert its conventional arms superiority over Pakistan, found it an opportune example to follow; consider India’s doctrine of cold-start was meant for exactly this purpose and her aggression in IOK and the February 25 and 27 encounters of this year. Musharraf, thus, punched a hole in Pakistan’s strategy and scored an own goal.

He then forced Nawaz Sharif, his prime minister, out of power on October 12, 1999. For three long months after Kargil, Nawaz had dithered from taking the hard decision to sack Musharraf for exceeding his powers and putting Pakistan in harm’s way. The entire country hung by a tether. Eventually, a silly misstep gave Musharraf the opportunity to oust NS and assume control of the country. Musharraf abrogated the Constitution — an act of treason — but had that enjoined by a judicial decree permitting him to act as the chief executive and amend laws as necessary. Iftikhar Chaudhry sat on that bench. Later, the Parliament too sanctified the decision in violation of its own statutes by another amendment exonerating Musharraf by name. Most senior legislators today also served Musharraf’s parliament. Talk of a legal, constitutionally enabled armed coup.

His tenure as the head of state was benevolent. Perhaps more democratic than most democrats. He opened the society to greater freedom and transparency with media-freedom unseen in this country. He re-invoked the Constitution and ran a parliamentary government even as he sat above it in uniform as its president. He founded an effective local bodies system which enabled a wider participation of the people in governance at the grass-root level. He reformed the police through an exhaustive 2002 Police Order. The country and the economy did reasonably well under him as is historically inclined to under men in uniform. But then like all unrepresentative power wielders he met his day of reckoning.

Musharraf’s came by two mistakes: when he attempted to sack Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, on complaints by the Shaukat Aziz government of his unnecessary meddling in executive affairs which backfired into an institutional stand-off; and second, when unable to control the judiciary and its perceived overreach — especially staying Musharraf’s induction as the president for a second term through procedural delays which Musharraf imputed mala fide — he proclaimed an Emergency. An Emergency is constitutionally provisioned but suspends some fundamental rights and bestows special powers to the government to undertake measures to stabilise an inherently disruptive development. Musharraf included asking justices to take another oath of office under the PCO. Most including the CJ rebelled and were summarily removed. Hurdles removed, Musharraf went on to take his oath of office as the president for a second term under a new CJ.

The declaration of Emergency was a perfectly legal measure provisioned under the Constitution and the law. But for Musharraf to do so as the army chief rather than the president that he was, was patently illegal — something his detractors have held on to as the premise to indict him. He was at least careful in “suspending” the Constitution than “abrogate”, a term which constituted the offence under Article 6. Though subsequent governments closed on to him via the 18th Amendment in 2010 when the word “suspend” and “held in abeyance” too was added to the list enabling his netting-in for treason under Article 6. The article was thus applied retrospectively in his case when he was indicted in 2014 under a law which was expanded in 2010 to include the nature of excess ascribed to Musharraf, for a crime which could at best be located in 2007, if not 1999. One of the judges poignantly observed the same, terming it mala fide amounting to miscarriage of justice in this case. The majority judgment and the sentence are thus patently unfair, fail the test of probity and violate the principles of jurisprudence.

Some disaggregation is in order. Declaration of Emergency is a legal act. Whether it was right under the circumstances is a matter of judgment. At worse, it was Musharraf’s mala fide to get back at those whose mala fide he suspected. The same Supreme Court had authorised him to contest the election which office when won by him was now being denied to him. Surely, the declaration would have been challenged in the courts and debated in Parliament, both perfectly within the ambit of law and Constitution, and may have been adjudicated against in all probability. He thus acted expediently in signing it off as the army chief. He should have been better advised. He risked his chances against the CJ and said so in a statement.

Musharraf’s original sin was to remove a democratic government and hold the Constitution in abeyance. That was treasonous. Declaration of Emergency was not. Yet that is what his treason is based upon. Legal and constitutional acts do not make for treason. The modicum of its application was wrong but to indict for treason, with the penalty of death, and then with an intensity directed in the detailed order betrays long-held venom than a decision based on legal argument. What was really incriminating has gone scot-free.

The Supreme Court’s full bench under Iftikhar Chaudhry ruled against the removal of judges under the PCO and annulled the decision; it declared the NRO null and void ab initio; it could have declared all provisions condoning the Musharraf martial law in the Constitution null and void and made Musharraf a criminal of the public and the Constitution. As it stands, the framed case and its weak premise, the lack of due process, and the alacrity in the nature of the decision and its intensity and the manner of its statement only smell of the distasteful and unsavoury. Such disregard for the tenets of justice can only be disruptive and preys on engendering institutional disharmony.

Musharraf has an attitude which irks many. He was a commando for whom opportunities slipped by without the chance for him to prove his mettle. Convinced he was destined for greatness he never could touch the zenith. Controversy shadowed him all along. He didn’t do too badly except for Kargil; that was self-destructive. He surely exhibited a swagger but doggedly fought the corner for Pakistan even when sick and frail. The widespread perception of being unfairly treated at the hand of the judiciary has only added sympathy and support for him across the country. Musharraf deserved better. He is no traitor. He can be faulted for judgment but not for being treasonous.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 22nd, 2019.

Like Opinion &amp; Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Lawmakers trade barbs over Musharraf verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122710/lawmakers-trade-barbs-musharraf-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122710/lawmakers-trade-barbs-musharraf-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 19 05:18:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[mohammad.zafar]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Balochistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2122710</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Provincial legislature passes resolution for restoration of student unions]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The last week’s verdict of a special court also echoed in the Balochistan Assembly where a provincial minister was continually interrupted by opposition members when he tried to criticise the court order that, he said, is against ethics, humanity and Islamic injunctions.

A three-judge special court on Dec 17 convicted former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and sentenced him to death for abrogating the Constitution in November 2007.

The military had expressed ‘pain and anguish’ over the verdict

The detailed verdict of the court, however, sparked further controversy as head of the bench, Justice Waqar Seth, recommended that the dead body of the former military ruler be dragged to Islamabad’s D-Chowk and hung there for three-days if Musharraf dies a natural death.

Pakistan Ulema Council terms Musharraf treason verdict 'un-Islamic'

Taking the floor on a point of order on Friday, Balochistan Finance Minister Zahoor Ahmed Buledi took exception to the verdict which he said was against humanity, ethics and Islamic injunctions.

“I am not defending General Musharraf but the order about dragging his body and hanging it for three days at D-Chowk in Islamabad is against the Islamic values. We are living in a civilised world and such verdict is defaming the country.”

He said the judgment against Musharraf had sent tremors across the country, as, according to Buledi, Musharraf had not been given chance of a fair trial.

“If someone is involved in any case he should be given the opportunity to defend himself,” he said. “Nobody is above the law and he is not opposing trial against Musharraf.”

During the entire speech, lawmakers from opposition benches continued to interrupt the minister

Opposition members – Sanaullah Baloch and Akhtar Hussain Langove of Balochistan National Party (BNP-M)-raised objection to the speech and said the minister could not comment on the verdict of a court.

They strongly criticised General Musharraf and continued to interrupt Buledi’s speech. Some other members from both sides of the aisle also stood up and started speaking for and against Musharraf.

Speaker Abdul Qudoos Bizenjo, however, allowed, the minister to complete his speech, saying that a court judgment could be discussed in the house.

The assembly also adopted a resolution with majority vote, demanding restoration of student unions in the educational institutions of Balochistan. The resolution was tabled by Sanaullah Baloch.

Speaking on the resolution, Baloch said student unions have a profound role in character building of young students. “Role of student unions in the educational institution cannot be overemphasised. Balochistan should contact the federal government for restoration of the student union in the country.”

Hamza Ali Abbasi calls Musharraf verdict unbiased

He said student unions have always been nurseries of political leaders. “I myself am product of the BSO [Baloch Student Organisation] and I am proud of it. Unions should be restored cross the country.”

Nasarullah Zerey of Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) said: “Ban on student unions is not fruitful. The ban has resulted in increasing problems for the students.”

He demanded that the unions should be restored without any further delay. Dictators – General Ziaul Haq and General Ayub Khan – felt threatened by these unions and imposed a ban on them, he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 22nd, 2019.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Weekly review: Seven-week winning streak comes to an end</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122647/weekly-review-seven-week-winning-streak-comes-end</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122647/weekly-review-seven-week-winning-streak-comes-end#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 19 03:36:57 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2122647</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Political developments, tensions at Pak-India border drag KSE-100 down]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The seven week bull-run finally came to an end as the stock market succumbed to the increasing political pressure and finished the week down 84 points or 0.2% at 40,833 points.

The outgoing week was marred with momentous developments on the political front, which kept the overall sentiments somewhat frayed.

The week kicked off with a bang as the KSE-100 index shot up to hit a 13-month high after investors engaged in buying exploration and production stocks on news that Pakistan had invited Russia to invest in state-owned oil and gas firms.

Late last week, Pakistan invited Russia to participate in the divestment of government’s shareholding in Oil and Gas Development Company (OGDC) and Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL) and become a strategic partner by acquiring shares. The upward momentum was also due to expectations relating to the rollover of deposit amounting $5 billion from UAE and Saudi Arabia was reported.

Market watch: Stocks battered as rate cut hopes dashed

Volatile trading made a comeback on Tuesday as the index witnessed sharp swings on the back of news that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) had proposed a 214% hike in gas prices.

Further dent to the market sentiment came after a special court announced its ruling in a case against former president Pervez Musharraf. In an unprecedented judgement in the nation’s history, the special court while hearing the high treason case sentenced the former military ruler to death. The news sent shockwaves throughout the bourse as the index dived nearly 600 points in intra-day trading. Despite this significant development, the index managed to stage a recovery and finish in the green.

The optimism could not be sustained and the index fell into the red zone on Wednesday amid choppy trading. In a late reaction to the Musharraf sentence, some investors resorted to book profits and remain on the sidelines.

The bearish rule continued as the index witnessed the biggest one-day fall in the CYTD. The 948-point plunge came as a result of growing tensions along the Pakistan-India border and a detailed verdict issued in ex-president Pervez Musharraf case, which dampened investor sentiment.

The market made a turnaround on the last trading day of the week and finished positive, however, the verdict in former president Pervez Musharraf’s treason case prevented it from making hefty gains.

Market watch: Stocks hit nine-month high following political clarity

Despite the tumultuous week, participation remained on an upward trajectory, as volumes traded increased 8%, while average value traded jumped 23%.

The unfolding developments on the domestic front stifled the excitement from some positive developments on the external front that came during the latter part of the week. The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed its first review of Pakistan’s economic performance under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) that allows disbursement of $452 million. In terms of sectors, contribution to the upside was led by E&amp;Ps and banks. Meanwhile, refinery, engineering and textile sectors took away points from the index. Scrip-wise, SHFA, SHEL, and DAWH emerged as the gainers, while IGIHL, FFBL and GATM contributed negatively to the index, according to a JS Research report.

Among highlights of the week were; the current account deficit dropped a massive 73% to $1.82 billion in the first five months of FY20, State Bank of Pakistan’s (SBP) foreign exchange reserves reached a level of $10.9 billion. 

Published in The Express Tribune, December 22nd, 2019.

Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Government ministers step up in Musharraf’s defence</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122135/government-ministers-step-musharrafs-defence</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2122135/government-ministers-step-musharrafs-defence#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 19 19:12:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondents]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2122135</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Fawad terms verdict ‘specific strategy targeting army’; Sarwar says move ‘part of conspiracy’]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government ministers have stepped up in defence of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf against the three-member special court’s detailed verdict, wherein, the presiding judge ruled that the corpse of the former military ruler should be hanged at D-Chowk if he dies before his execution.

The addition of the rider to the verdict did not sit well with the government as well as the Pakistani military. A high-level meeting chaired by Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday decided to approach the Supreme Judicial Council against the conduct of Justice Waqar Seth, head of the three-judge special court that issued the verdict in the Musharraf treason case.

The Pakistani military also took strong exception to the judge’s choice of words, saying it “is beyond the basic values of religion, humanity and civilisation”.

On December 17, the three-judge special court – comprising Justice Waqar Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim – sentenced Musharraf to death after finding him guilty of high treason for abrogating the Constitution in 2007.

PBC disapproves ISPR DG’s ‘criticism’ of detailed verdict in Musharraf treason case

On Thursday, the special court issued its detailed verdict in the case.
In a series of tweets on Friday, Federal Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry warned that Pakistan could head towards “anarchy” if the “institution of the army was divided or weakened”.

Fawad reiterated the government’s stance that the special court’s verdict against Musharraf was part of a “specific strategy targeting the army”.

“This is not just about Pervez Musharraf; the Pakistan Army was targeted as per a specific strategy. First, the army and ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] were involved in the [Tehreek-e-Labbaik] sit-in case, then the army chief’s extension was made controversial, and now a famous former army chief has been humiliated.

“The sequence of events is now more than just a judicial or legal matter. If the institution of the army is divided or weakened, the country cannot be saved from anarchy.”

The minister said the incumbent army chief and military leadership stood by Pakistan’s democratic institutions, but warned that their support “should not be misconstrued as weakness”.

In the same vein, Special Assistant to the PM on Information Firdous Ashiq Awan also stressed the need for harmony and mutual trust among state institutions.

“Strong institutions are imperative for Pakistan’s progress, promotion of democracy, and welfare of the masses,” she said in a series of tweets.

https://twitter.com/Dr_FirdousPTI/status/1207862481726648320

She said Prime Minister Imran Khan and the military leadership were collectively steering the country through a plethora of challenges, and Pakistan was now on the track of economic stability and development.

“External elements and their internal stooges will fail in their nefarious designs to weaken the institutions and stoke instability in the country,” said Firdous, adding that the cabinet members’ statements were in line with the stance taken by the army and PM Imran on the Musharraf treason verdict.

Separately addressing the media-persons, Federal Minister for Aviation Ghulam Sarwar Khan termed the special court’s verdict a result of the presidential reference against former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

Petitioner challenges Musharraf verdict in SC Karachi registry

“The verdict and the order pertaining to the extension of the army chief are part of a conspiracy,” said the aviation minister, adding that the Supreme Court gave Musharraf the power to amend the Constitution after he ousted the PML-N government.

He said the Supreme Court was with Musharraf in ousting the civilian government in October 1999 but against filing of the reference.
Under judicial authority, Musharraf had brought a reference against the then chief justice and today, under the same authority, a reference has been filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

“The reference against Iftikhar Chaudhry had not been heard then, and today also efforts are being made to stop the reference,” said Sarwar.

The federal minister pointed out that the Para 66 of the court’s verdict was shocking. “It [the verdict] has publicly ridiculed the country’s judicial system in front of the whole world.”

Sarwar requested the courts to desist from giving such a verdict that might give joy to Pakistan’s enemies.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Overnight: Hamza Ali Abbasi has a change of heart regarding Musharraf verdict</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121726/overnight-hamza-ali-abbasi-change-heart-regarding-musharraf-verdict</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121726/overnight-hamza-ali-abbasi-change-heart-regarding-musharraf-verdict#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 19 05:29:46 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Entertainment Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Life &amp; Style]]></category><category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121726</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The actor now believes that public hanging of Pervaiz Musharraf is ‘illegal’]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Actor Hamza Ali Abbasi has dismissed his previous notion of the Special Court (SC) being unbiased in its verdict against General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

He  changed his opinion after details of the verdict were released. The verdict shows one of the judges condoning public display of Musharraf’s corpse at D-Chowk in case he was apprehended dead.

Read: Hamza Ali Abbasi calls Musharraf verdict unbiased

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207656695352242176

“#MusharafVerdict wait what? I take my words back about not accusing judges of being anti Army or anti Pakistan. I am shocked at these words in the verdict.This is not Rule of Law.These words in the verdict are absolutely illegal, immoral &amp; clearly wrong!” the actor turned activist tweeted as a posted an excerpt from the verdict.

Hamza went on to describe the move as hypocritical adding that the public hanging aspect is unconstitutional.

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207658293805682692

“Public hanging &amp; dead body of Musharraf to stay hanged in public for three days? Wow.When nation demanded public hanging of child rapist &amp; murderers we were told there is no Law to do that. So by which law in constitution has the judge given this sentence to Musharraf?” he tweeted.

Earlier on Hamza had asked Musharraf supporters to stop accusing the SC of being pro Nawaz or Anti army in light of the death sentence against the former army chief. He had used the opportunity to justify the court’s earlier verdict against Nawaz Sharif to critics.

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207458788355301377

“Also, this decision has created a great example that a trial can be concluded &amp; sentence be given even if accused is not present. Will courts now apply this also to Ishaq Dar, Hassan Sharif, Hussain Sharif &amp; others?” he had tweeted.

Have something to add to the story? Share in the comments below]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Petitioner challenges Musharraf verdict in SC Karachi registry</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121488/petitioner-challenges-musharraf-verdict-sc-karachi-registry</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121488/petitioner-challenges-musharraf-verdict-sc-karachi-registry#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 19 03:53:44 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121488</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Petitioner demands registration of case against Nawaz Sharif, others]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A plea seeking the annulment of the high treason verdict sentencing former president Pervez Musharraf to death was filed in the Supreme Court Karachi registry on Thursday.

Challenging the verdict, petitioner Mehmood Akhter Rizvi nominated the Government of Pakistan, the defence secretary, the law and justice secretary, the cabinet division secretary, the establishment secretary, former interior secretary Shahid Khan and the current interior secretary as parties in his plea.

Basing his argument on the 18th Amendment, Rizvi maintained that the charge of high treason did not apply to Musharraf because Article 6 was amended in 2010 while the former president had imposed a state of emergency in the country in 2007.

Musharraf to challenge special court's verdict

Therefore, he claimed, Musharraf did not violate any law or the Constitution during his rule

The plea stated that Musharraf had given his regime a legal status by conducting a referendum, going on to declare the verdict issued by the Supreme Court as illegal, unconstitutional and against Islamic values.

Rizvi, in his plea, asserted that the case against Musharraf was pursued in his absence, thus violating Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC), which states that the statement of the accused should be recorded before the trial court. He added that the verdict is unconstitutional as Article 10-A was violated by depriving Musharraf of his right to a free and fair trial.

Read: Detailed verdict issued in Musharraf treason case

He claimed that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, conspiring with former interior secretary Shahid Khan and others, established a case against Musharraf on the basis of Article 6, grounded on mala fide intentions.

The plea demanded the annulment of the verdict issued by the special court on December 17, sentencing Musharraf to death, as well as the registration of a case against Sharif, Khan, and others under Section 182 of the CRPC.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 20th, 2019.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Failure to plead high-profile cases: PTI govt's legal gurus in the crosshairs</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121567/govt-legal-gurus-crosshairs</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121567/govt-legal-gurus-crosshairs#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 19 21:15:49 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121567</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Legal experts warn govt against risks of filing reference against Justice Seth]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The government’s legal gurus are said to be in the crosshairs after their back-to-back failures to effectively plead high-profile cases in the superior judiciary.

According to a senior government functionary, top civil and military officials have been particularly upset with the legal team’s failure to tackle the treason case against Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and the case of chief of army staff (COAS) Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa’s extension.

Imran Khan, who in the past had vowed to try Musharraf for his unconstitutional acts, has been conspicuously silent on the treason trial of the former military ruler since coming to power. In the meantime, most former close aides of Musharraf also made their way into the inner sanctum of the PTI.

'Mentally unfit, incompetent': Govt to move SJC against judge over Musharraf treason verdict

Initially, both Law Minister Barrister Farogh Naseem and Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Anwar Mansoor Khan had publicly said that they would not give their legal opinion on Musharraf’s case.

A senior official believes it was their disassociation with the case that put the government in an embarrassing predicament.

When the PTI came to power, the chief prosecutor in the Musharraf case, Akram Sheikh, had immediately resigned while his team members stayed on for a year.

The government had a golden opportunity to withdraw the case when the special court on May 2 sought the government’s reply over Musharraf’s plea about his acquittal under Section 295K CrPC.

The government had failed to realise the gravity of the situation even at the time of nomination of Justice Seth as presiding judge by the chief justice and issued a notification regarding his appointment.

Later, it forced the then law secretary to resign as a face-saving exercise.

Detailed verdict issued in Musharraf high treason case

A former AGP believes the only option the government has now is to approach the apex court against special court’s judgment. “No judicial order can be overturned by anyone, including parliament. The only option left is of pardon, which is also doubtful,” he told The Express Tribune.

On the other hand, a senior PTI leader said the incumbent AGP had failed to properly defend the government on the issue of the COAS’s extension in the apex court.

“Even before taking up the matter, the CJP had invited the AGP to his chamber to discuss the petition filed against the COAS’s extension, but he failed to satisfy him,” he claimed.

He said the government officials were upset over the detailed verdict in the COAS extension case because the AGP had himself assured the apex court of appropriate legislation on the service terms of COAS.

Verdict attempt to create anarchy, unrest: PM Imran

The detailed judgment also states that the AGP had assured the court that the government would carry out legislation through parliament in the shape of an act within six months to provide for the terms of service of a COAS so that effect can be given to Article 243 in letter and spirit and functionality of the constitutional provisions be realised at the earliest.

A senior PTI lawyer believes the government’s legal team could not decide the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa in the Supreme Judicial Council. Similarly, the case of internment centres in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is also pending in the apex court.

As the government announced to file a presidential reference against special court head Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, a senior lawyer said the government should refrain from questioning the “sanity” of the judge.

A former AGP fears that a presidential reference against Justice Seth on account of his mental health may provide India ground to file a review against the ICJ judgment to establish that the Pakistani judiciary was not fit to try Jadhav.

Pakistan Bar Council slams DG ISPR statement on Musharraf's treason verdict

They may say that if, according to the law minister, the AGP and the military spokesperson, the judiciary could not be trusted to try a former president and COAS, then how could it be trusted to try an Indian spy?

In fact, Justice Seth’s judgment was specifically mentioned by the ICJ and now if the government is calling him unfit to be a judge, if nothing else it would be quite an embarrassing position for Pakistan if such review is filed, he adds.

It was Justice Seth who had set aside the trials of military court convicts and his judgment had also rescued Pakistan before the International Court of Justice in the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Recently, Justice Seth, who is also the PHC chief justice, had declared the functioning of scores of internment centres in K-P unconstitutional. Interestingly, senior lawyers have been recommending for Justice Seth’s elevation to the apex court.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan Ulema Council terms Musharraf treason verdict 'un-Islamic'</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121389/pakistan-ulema-council-terms-musharraf-treason-verdict-un-islamic</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121389/pakistan-ulema-council-terms-musharraf-treason-verdict-un-islamic#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 19 17:14:28 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[News Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121389</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Tahir Ashrafi says law of the land and Shariah provide no precedent of such a verdict]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[All Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC) Chairman Tahir Ashrafi said on Thursday that the special court’s judgement against former military ruler retired General Pervez Musharraf is against the Islamic constitution.

The three-judge bench – comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim – convicted the former president of high treason and sentenced him to death on Tuesday.

In the detailed judgement issued earlier in the day, the court “directed the law enforcement agencies to apprehend the fugitive/convict to ensure that the punishment is inflicted as per law, and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk, Islamabad, and be hanged for 3 days”.

Condemning the verdict, the PUC chief said the law of the land and Shariah provide no precedent of such a verdict "which is against the Islamic law."

Read: Detailed verdict issued in Musharraf treason case

Tahir Ashrafi said that the "trial of politicians and judges should also be conducted, if the former military ruler had subverted the Constitution" on November 3, 2007.

Moreover, the Pakistani military took strong exceptions to the special court’s detailed judgement, saying that they “know how to defend the honour and dignity of the institution” but were exercising restraint because for them, “the country comes first”.

“The detailed judgement, especially the choice of words, is beyond the basic values of religion, humanity and civilisation,” the chief military spokesperson, Major General Asif Ghafoor, told an unscheduled media briefing on Thursday – shortly after the special court issued its detailed judgement.

Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari said the words used were “aghast” and a “violation of the constitution”. She questioned where the country was headed with such “violent mindsets”.

https://twitter.com/ShireenMazari1/status/1207662771661352960]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf verdict: 'Barbaric and unconstitutional'</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121181/musharraf-verdict-barbaric-unconstitutional</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121181/musharraf-verdict-barbaric-unconstitutional#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 19 16:54:44 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Social Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121181</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Twitterati slam excerpt of detailed high treason verdict calling for his corpse to be dragged to Islamabad's D-Chowk]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The detailed judgement into the high treason case against former military ruler retired General Pervez Musharraf has drawn the ire of social media users with netizens slamming the special court's orders to drag the ex-army chief's corpse to  Islamabad's D-Chowk.

The special court formed to try Musharraf in the high treason case released the detailed judgement on Thursday as the former president was tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

One of the excerpts of the detailed verdict was almost unanimously condemned by social media users.

"We direct the Law Enforcement Agencies to strive their level best to apprehend the fugitive/convict to ensure that the punishment is inflicted as per law and if found dead, his corpse be dragged to the D-Chowk, Islamabad, Pakistan and be hanged for 03 days,” the verdict read.

Read: Detailed verdict issued in Musharraf treason case

Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari said the words used were "aghast" and a "violation of the constitution."

She questioned where the country was headed with such "violent mindsets"

https://twitter.com/ShireenMazari1/status/1207662771661352960

Public policy expert and analyst Mosharraf Zaidi termed the certain excerpt of the verdict directing law enforcement agencies to hang Musharraf's corpse in Islamabad's D-Chowk for 3 days if he passes away as "Un-Islamic, barbaric, unconstitutional and completely unacceptable".

https://twitter.com/mosharrafzaidi/status/1207595822516490241

While columnist Khurram Hussain seconded Zaidi's view and heavily criticised paragraph 66 of the verdict, saying:"This has severely dented the credibility of the judgement."

https://twitter.com/KhurramHusain/status/1207614939487232000

Nida Kirmani, rights activist, also weighed-in claiming the excerpt had successfully distracted the public from issue of the men in uniform's interference in politics.

https://twitter.com/nidkirm/status/1207614545319120896

Actor Hamza Ali Abbasi was more damning in his indictment of the verdict. He shared his bewilderment at the words, saying: "This is not rule of law... these words are absolutely illegal, immoral and clearly WRONG!"

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207656695352242176

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Hamza Ali Abbasi calls Musharraf verdict unbiased</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121088/hamza-ali-abbasi-calls-musharraf-verdict-unbiased</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2121088/hamza-ali-abbasi-calls-musharraf-verdict-unbiased#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 19 09:07:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Entertainment Desk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Life &amp; Style]]></category><category><![CDATA[TV]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2121088</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Hamza Ali Abbasi has asked Musharraf supporters to stop accusing judiciary of being ‘Pro Nawaz and Anti Army’]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Earlier this week General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was handed a death sentence by a special court in Islamabad. The magnitude of the court’s verdict left the internet divided with celebrities not shying away from giving their own opinion on the matter.

Unlike others, Hamza Ali Abbassi lauded the judiciary’s decision in a series of tweets.

The actor used the opportunity to justify the court’s earlier verdict against Nawaz Sharif to critics.

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1206966047594680321

“After #Musharraf verdict, will PML-N &amp; our super intellectuals now apologise for their allegations about the judiciary being the establishment's puppet when Nawaz's verdict came out?” he tweeted.

He talked about how the courts should employ a similar process in corruption cases against overseas PML-N members

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207370765831720966

“Also, now that this decision has created a great example that a trial can be concluded &amp; sentence be given even if accused is not present. Will courts now apply this also to Ishaq Dar, Hassan Sharif, Hussain Sharif &amp; others?” he tweeted.

While Hamza didn’t exactly bash Musharraf, he did go on to dismiss the notion that the verdict came out of the judiciary’s biases.

https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/1207458788355301377
“To all those supporting Musharraf, express your disagreement and anger at the decision but accusing judges and Supreme Court of being anti Army and Pro Nawaz makes you no different than Nawaz supporters who branded the same SC &amp; judges as puppets of Army establishment,when verdict against Nawaz came out. Think!” he tweeted.

Meanwhile, Mehwish Hayat and Shaan Shahid along with some others went on to express their support for former president.

https://twitter.com/MehwishHayat/status/1206981920581672960

https://twitter.com/mshaanshahid/status/1207015413789396995

Have something to add to the story? Share in the comments below]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Ghani welcomes Talpur’s release</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2120097/ghani-welcomes-talpurs-release</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2120097/ghani-welcomes-talpurs-release#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 19 03:42:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2120097</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says there is no truth to the allegations levelled against PPP leaders]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Sindh Information, Archives and Labour Minister Saeed Ghani welcomed the release of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) leader Faryal Talpur on bail and expressed the hope that other party leaders too would be granted bail, while talking to media persons on Tuesday.

He said that there was no truth to allegations levelled against PPP leaders in various cases, terming the summoning and arrest of Syed Khursheed Shah and other party leaders by the National Accountability Bureau “an act of vindictiveness.”

Commenting on the death sentence awarded to former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the information minister said that it was the first time in the history of Pakistan that a court had issued a verdict on the basis of Article 6 of the Constitution. Underlining the importance of the verdict, Ghani said, “[Now] no one will ever think of abrogating, subverting or suspending the Constitution.” 

Published in The Express Tribune, December 18th, 2019.

 ]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf’s stay plea referred to LHC chief justice</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119990/musharrafs-stay-plea-referred-lhc-chief-justice</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119990/musharrafs-stay-plea-referred-lhc-chief-justice#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 18:41:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119990</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Bench asks Justice Sardar Shamim Khan to constitute a full bench to hear former president’s plea]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In an interesting development, a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge on Tuesday asked chief justice of the high court to form a full bench to hear a plea seeking stop proceedings of a special court that hours later awarded capital punishment to former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

A single bench of the LHC, comprising Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, took up General Musharraf’s petition filed earlier this month as he once again asked the former president’s counsels as to how the LHC could hear petition of a person who is not resident of the province.

“Just quote a single judgment to establish that the court can take cognizance of that matter in which the petitioner is residing in anther province,” he asked.

Musharraf’s counsels argued that a number of such judgments were available but could not furnish any precedent. “You can take time to answer as to how this case falls under LHC’s jurisdiction otherwise I will send the case to the LHC chief justice for constitution of full bench,” Justice Naqvi remarked.

The counsels request the judge to stay the proceedings before referring the case to the LHC chief justice as according to them, Justice Naqvi had already heard the case.

However, Justice Naqvi asked the LHC Chief Justice Sardar Shamim Khan to constitute a full bench to hear Pervez Musharraf’s petition rather than staying the special court.

The Musharraf’s counsel requested the court to summon the trial court’s record to which Justice Naqvi remarked the record will be summoned if required.  During the hearing, Justice Naqvi also question formation of the three-judge special court.

“How could the special court decide the trial court without recording his [Musharraf] statement under 342 CrPC [Code of Criminal Procedure],” he observed.  .

Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan also appeared in the court and argued that prosecution had submitted an application to the special court to send a commission abroad for recording statement of the accused, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf under 342 CrPC.

However, AAG Khan said, the special court had made it clear to the prosecution to submit such application as soon as possible as it wanted to wind up the trial that is pending for six years.

Musharraf, in his petition, had requested the LHC to stay the trial in absentia until he recuperates and appears before court.

He further sought directions for the Ministry of Interior secretary and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general to conduct a proper and unbiased investigation into the case to know about the alleged aiders and abettors.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf’s party to challenge ‘death sentence’ in Supreme Court</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119971/musharrafs-party-challenge-death-sentence-supreme-court</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119971/musharrafs-party-challenge-death-sentence-supreme-court#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 17:28:55 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Saqib Virk]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119971</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former president’s counsel accuses court of announcing decision in haste and without completing legal obligations]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[All Pakistan Mslim League (APML) – a party formerly led by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf – has announced that it will challenge a death sentence verdict issued against its founder in the Supreme Court.

Musharraf had stepped down from the chairmanship of APML last year in June.

Addressing a news conference at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Musharraf’s counsel Salman Safdar claimed that today’s verdict was taken in haste and without completing the legal obligations. “This case lacked fair trial… the whole prosecution was wrong from the beginning,” he said while reacting to the special court’s decision.

A three-judge bench — comprising judges of three high courts, Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim — convicted the former military ruler of treason and sentenced him to death earlier in the day.

Special court sentences Musharraf to death in high treason case

“This is the first verdict in the judiciary’s history which is annolunced in absence of the suspect and without giving him the right of defence,” said Safdar. “This verdict is even more controversial than the one given in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case,” he added.

The former president’s lawyer said that fair trial was every citizen’s basic right. “Pervez Musharraf and even us didn’t expect this decision to be announced in such haste… all laws are ignored in today’s verdict,” he remarked.

Responding to a question, Safdar said Musharraf was critically ill and a statement through video recording was not an option in a high-profile case like this. “By not giving us the right to fair trial despite high court’s decision, basic rights are being usurped… all our pleas including that of forming a medical commission had been rejected,” he maintained.

Earlier in a press release, the party stated that they were ‘appalled’ by the court’s decision to announce the judgment without recording the former president’s statement.

APML to file appeal against special court’s decision

“We think this is an unconstitutional trial pursued in the most unconstitutional way without hearing his lawyer and giving them a chance to defend him,” read the press release.

The APML party said that during his stay in Pakistan, Musharraf was a law-abiding citizen and appeared before all the courts to face charges against him.

“We firmly believe that all the cases created against the former president have mala fide, and he is being made subject to political victimisation,” it stated.

The party maintained that the case was formed on “flimsy grounds where aiders and abettors were excluded from the case and its hearing and the former president was singled out, though the decision was taken after consultation with the cabinet members, chief ministers, governors and corps commanders”.

In a separate statement, APML Secretary-General Mehreen Malik said that Musharraf was ready to explore all legal options and would go to any length to get justice.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf's conviction: 'Pakistan is changing – and for the better'</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119696/musharrafs-conviction-pakistan-changing-better</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119696/musharrafs-conviction-pakistan-changing-better#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 09:39:12 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119696</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan is changing – and for the better, says political analyst Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Political analysts and lawyers have called Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s conviction and sentencing in a high treason case as “unprecedented” in the judicial history of Pakistan where courts in the past had legitimised unconstitutional moves on the basis of “doctrine of necessity”.

Though they see slim chances of implementation of the special court judgment, still they believe the sentencing of a former army chief for subverting the Constitution carries “symbolic importance”.

“Pakistan is changing – and for the better,” said political analyst Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood while commenting on Musharraf’s conviction. “The judgment confirms that the present courts as independent and fair,” he added.

Masood said the judgment was “extraordinary” given how the judiciary had conducted itself in the past. “The verdict means nobody is above the law. Previously, there used to be a hierarchy but now every person is subject to Pakistan’s law and the Constitution,” he added.

“It is transformational – a healthy change. It confirms that the judiciary is independent and deciding cases in accordance with the law and the Constitution,” he added.

Masood further said that the circumstances in which Musharraf had toppled Nawaz Sharif’s government and imposed emergency might be debatable. “But one cannot continue to use the same tactics hence the judgment is important.”

Lt Gen (retd) Ziauddin Abbasi, aka Ziauddin Butt, said it was the first time the judiciary had “given the right verdict”.

“The decision was a long time coming,” said Ziauddin, whose appointment as army chief by then-premier Nawaz Sharif on the night of October 1999 had triggered a series of events which eventually led to Musharraf’s coup.

Ziauddin said some judges had “shown the courage to stand by the law and the Constitution”. “The man responsible for causing so much damage to the country deserved to be brought to justice,” he added.

Masood said the verdict has sent a message that no one was above the law. Political analyst Tariq Pirzada agreed with Masood. “The ruling sends a signal that Pakistan is changing and its judicial system has changed”.

Ikram Chaudhry, a former member of the prosecution team in Musharraf treason case, calls it a landmark judgment. “It will serve as great deterrence against unconstitutional acts,” he said.

Pakistan Bar Council member Raheel Kamran Sheikh echoed the same sentiment. “The decision has far-reaching consequences,” he told The Express Tribune.

“All martial law enforcers remained and acted in a state of insecurity vis-à-vis international and domestic legitimacy and validation of their takeovers on return to democracy,” he added.

Musharraf, who is currently receiving treatment in a UAE hospital, has the option to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court, and appeal for a presidential pardon, if the apex court upholds his conviction and sentence.

Ziauddin doubts the former army chief would return. “He may cite his medical condition as an excuse against extradition,” he said.

Masood added that “it is very much possible that the UAE may not follow through if Pakistan requests Musharraf’s extradition, considering his health”.

He said there was also a possibility that President Arif Alvi might pardon the former military ruler. “His [Musharraf’s] counsel will challenge the verdict and the decision may take a long time.”

Hamid Khan, a lawyer and founding member of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, said the government should withdraw all civil and military awards conferred on Musharraf.

“He should not be entitled to pension and other perks and privileges given to retired officers,” said Khan, whose basic party membership was recently suspended by the PTI.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Govt will review special court's judgment, says Awan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119707/govt-will-review-special-courts-judgment-says-awan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119707/govt-will-review-special-courts-judgment-says-awan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 09:20:01 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119707</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Says government’s legal team will analyse all aspects first before deciding on a future course of action]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Information and Broadcasting Firdous Ashiq Awan on Tuesday said the government will "review in detail" the special court's judgment to sentence former military ruler Pervez Musharraf to death.

Responding to a question about whether the government will bring Musharraf back to Pakistan, the special assistant said the decision will be made after consulting the legal team.
“We will review in detail, today's verdict as well as yesterday's.”

Special court sentences Musharraf to death in high treason case

The special assistant said the government’s legal team will analyse all aspects first before deciding on a future course of action.

She further stated that Prime Minister Imran Khan will return from his trip on Wednesday and the final decision will be made after he takes a look at the “relevant ground realities and legal framework”.

Federal Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Azam Khan Swati said the federal government will do anything which would benefit the state institutions.

“We cannot challenge the court’s decision,” said Swati when asked about government’s petition of staying the verdict.

Defence Minister Pervaiz Khattak said that it is the special court’s decision; the decision of Supreme Court is subject to implementation.

The case

Musharraf has been on trial for high treason for imposing a state of emergency in 2007, and a special court was constituted by then prime minister Nawaz Sharif to try Musharraf for violating the Constitution.

CJP Khosa played key role in concluding treason case against Musharraf

The verdict was split 2-1 and the detailed judgement will be issued with in the next two days. The former military ruler is currently residing and under treatment in Dubai.

“Pervez Musharraf has been found guilty of Article 6 for violation of the constitution of Pakistan,” government law officer Salman Nadeem said.

Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo welcomed the decision. “Pakistan needed this verdict. Today's decision proves that there is rule of law in the country," he said.

The government [prosecution in this case] had petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in November to set aside the November 19 order of a special court trying the former military ruler for “subverting the Constitution” in 2007.

The government requested IHC through the interior ministry to set aside the November 19 order of the special court and suspend its proceedings until the formation of a new prosecution team.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>CJP Khosa: The judge who fast-tracked treason case</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119676/cjp-khosa-played-key-role-concluding-treason-case-musharraf</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119676/cjp-khosa-played-key-role-concluding-treason-case-musharraf#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 08:16:03 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Hasnaat Malik]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119676</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[CJP was unhappy over undue interference by the high courts to halt treason proceedings in the last three weeks]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Outgoing Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Asif Saeed Khosa is said to have played a key role in making sure the six-year-old treason trial against former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf is concluded before he retires.

Justice Khosa – who is stepping down on Dec 20 – has handed down several key verdicts against political and judicial functionaries during his tenure, inviting the ire of many but projecting the apex court as a strong institution.

The Musharraf treason case – which was initiated in Nov 2013 by the government of his old foe Nawaz Sharif – had hit frequent delays as special court judges either recused themselves, or retired, or were elevated. “Had it not been for the chief justice, the case might never been decided,” a senior official told The Express Tribune.

According to him, Justice Khosa brought the case back to life. It has been learnt that he was not happy with “undue interference of the high courts” to halt the special court proceedings during the last three weeks.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC), on a petition of the interior ministry, had stopped the special court from announcing its verdict on Nov 28, while directing the government to form a new prosecution team to pursue the case. The Lahore High Court (LHC) is also hearing Musharraf’s petitions against the special court.

On Nov 20, the chief justice had hinted that the case verdict would be announced soon. While addressing a ceremony at the Supreme Court, he said the post-2009 judiciary had convicted one prime minster [Yousuf Raza Gilani], disqualified another [Nawaz Sharif], and was soon going to decide the high treason case against a former army chief [Pervez Musharraf].

Justice Khosa headed the larger bench that had heard the Panama Leaks case in 2017, becoming the first judge to disqualify then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution.

Similarly, he was part of a seven-judge larger bench which had disqualified then-prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in the National Reconciliation Order (NRO) case in 2010. He had also written an additional note in the verdict.

Likewise, Justice Khosa had also upheld the death sentence awarded to Mumtaz Qadri, the self-confessed murderer of then-governor Punjab Salman Taseer. He was also part of a special bench which had acquitted Christian woman Aasia Bibi in the blasphemy case.

Of late, a Supreme Court bench – headed by Justice Khosa – gave the government six months to fix the service terms of an army chief through an act of parliament.

On Nov 21, 2014, the three-judge special court – then led by Justice Faisal Arab, – had directed the government to include the names of Shaukat Aziz, Abdul Hameed Dogar, and Zahid Hamid – then PM, CJP and law minister, respectively, as co-accused in the Musharraf treason case. The proceedings were suspended for a couple of years because of the order.

In Feb 2016, the Supreme Court, led by CJP Khosa, had set aside the special court order by directing that the trial against Musharraf be concluded. The court had ruled that only Musharraf should be tried over treason charges for subverting the Constitution in 2007.

In the 11-page order, authored by CJP Khosa, the apex court had observed that a fresh investigation into high treason by associating any person lies within the prerogative of the government and not the special court or the IHC. It had also reproduced all the observations and declarations made by the SC and the Sindh High Court, holding Musharraf solely responsible for the Nov 3, 2007 actions.

The judgment reads that the observations and declarations have already attained finality and they are in public domain. In the meantime, Musharraf had gone abroad for medical treatment.

Soon after taking charge as CJP, Justice Khosa had taken up the matter regarding the delay in Musharraf’s trial.

On March 25, he had referred to the punishment given to English dictator Oliver Cromwell – the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland – whose skeleton had been hanged after his death, observing that an accused was deliberately not appearing before the trial court and questioning if the court was helpless.

In April, a three-member apex court bench, led by the CJP himself, had directed the special court to proceed under the law by concluding the matter. It had held that, if the accused failed to turn up, he would lose his right to an audience. Following the SC’s decision, the special court resumed hearing.

After the retirement of Justice Tahira Safdar, a special court member, CJP Khosa had nominated Peshawar High Court (PHC) Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth to preside over the special court. He had ensured issuance of notification of Justice Seth’s appointment within two days.

A senior official told that when the notification regarding Justice Seth’s appointment was issued, the powers that be got upset and the government removed the acting law secretary.

Justice Seth had set aside trials of military courts’ convicts, and his judgment had also rescued Pakistan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. Recently, Justice Seth had declared unconstitutional the functioning of scores of internment centres in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf verdict: Opposition hails victory of democracy, Constitution</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119660/musharraf-verdict-govt-will-review-special-courts-judgment-says-awan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119660/musharraf-verdict-govt-will-review-special-courts-judgment-says-awan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 08:15:49 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[our.correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119660</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[PML-N, PPP welcome special court ruling against former military ruler]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The major opposition parties on Tuesday welcomed the special court verdict in the high treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, calling the ruling a victory of the democracy and the Constitution.

PML-N Secretary General Ahsan Iqbal said that for the first time the superiority of the Constitution was taking root in Pakistan, while PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari repeated his party’s earlier stance that “democracy is the best revenge”.

Soon after the verdict was announced, the PML-N, which initiated the treason trial when it was in power in 2013, issued a statement, saying that Tuesday’s special court judgment had written a new chapter in the history of Pakistan.

The reactions come as a three-member special court handed death penalty to Musharraf in the treason case. The former president has been convicted of abrogating the Constitution and imposing an emergency in the country in 2007.

“With this momentous verdict, the court has blocked any future attempts to abrogate Pakistan’s Constitution,” Marriyum Aurangzeb, the PML-N’s information secretary, said in the PML-N statement. “A new era of the people’s right to self-govern and supremacy of the Constitution will ensue after this decision.”

PML-N secretary general Ahsan Iqbal hailed the decision, saying the decision by the special court would break the precedent of abrogating the Constitution. “Had this judgement come 50 years ago, the black-tradition of martial law would not have been set and East Pakistan would still be with us.”

Shortly after the verdict was announced, Bilawal tweeted: “Democracy is the best revenge. Jiye Bhutto.” Bilawal, who was in Ghotki on Tuesday, also told reporters that the party would “read carefully” the detailed verdict, once it was issued.

https://twitter.com/BBhuttoZardari/status/1206839799296020481

“We are hopeful that now, after this democratic verdict, our courts will continue to issue democratic rulings. After this verdict, we can hope that our courts will side with justice and democracy for all days to come,” he added.

Responding to a question about the other accused in the case, the PPP chairman told reporters that “there is a lot of debate … we should talk about what is in front of us … It is a historic decision.”

The PPP chairman, who had earlier said he considered Musharraf the “murderer” of his mother, lamented that several cases, including that of the Benazir Bhutto murder case, were still pending in courts and demanded that they also be picked up as well.

Bilawal also hailed the bails granted to PPP leadership, including his father Asif Zardari, aunt Faryal Talpur, and party leaders Khursheed Shah and Agha Siraj Durrani. “All the players of the PPP are out now, we will struggle together and this government will go home soon,” he said.

Other PPP leaders also hailed the verdict. Senator Sherry Rehman said the party had always accepted the court decisions, whether it agreed with them or not. “We believe the court should also take up the cases of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto and Shaheed ZulfiKar Ali Bhutto,” she added.

Senior lawyer and PPP leader Aitzaz Ahsan claimed that the former military ruler committed treason twice. “It would have been more appropriate if the verdict of the October 12, 1999 case was given first. That is when Musharraf arrested the prime minister and disrespected the law.”

When asked if Musharraf was given a fair trial, Aitzaz said: “He was given a fair trial. He is the one who ran away. Musharraf’s case and its verdict is historic. The court played its role and did what the law says,” he added.

Opposition Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo welcomed the decision. “Pakistan needed this verdict. Today’s decision proves that there is rule of law in the country,” he said.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Special court convicts Musharraf of high treason, sentences him to death</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119554/special-court-begins-hearing-arguments-musharraf-high-treason-case</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119554/special-court-begins-hearing-arguments-musharraf-high-treason-case#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 06:00:44 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[zaigham.naqvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119554</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Former military ruler sentenced for violating Constitution under Article 6]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has been convicted of high treason and sentenced to death by a special court in an unprecedented trail delayed by the absence of the septuagenarian former military ruler, who has been out of the country since 2016.

It is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a former army chief has been tried and sentenced under Article 6 of the Constitution, which states, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

The charges against Musharraf – who was sentenced in absentia on Tuesday – stem from his imposition of a state of emergency in 2007, after which dozens of judges were placed under house arrest or sacked, sparking widespread street protests by lawyers.

The three-judge special court — comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim — handed down 2-1 split verdict after hearing arguments from the new prosecution team appointed by the government. A detailed verdict will be issued within 48 hours.

“Pervez Musharraf has been found guilty of Article 6 for violation of the Constitution of Pakistan,” government law officer Salman Nadeem said.

When the proceedings started on Tuesday, the prosecution team, led by Advocate Ali Zia Bajwa, prayed the court amend Musharraf’s indictment. He said the government wanted to also frame charges against Shaukat Aziz, Abdul Hamid Dogar, and Zahid Hamid, the then prime minister, chief justice of Pakistan, and law minister, respectively.

“It is imperative for all accused to be tried simultaneously. The aiders and abettors should be tried as well,” said Advocate Bajwa.

According to Clause (2) of Article 6 of the Constitution, “Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in Clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

The bench remarked that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated the matter and given the government two weeks to submit a new charge sheet.

Justice Karim wondered if the government was using delaying tactics in the treason case against Musharraf. “The government should file a new complaint if it wants to add additional names in the trial,” he added.

When Justice Waqar told the prosecutor to present his arguments, Advocate Bajwa sought more time to file a formal request. “If you cannot present arguments, then leave the rostrum,” shot back an irked Justice Waqar.

The bench again observed that the special court was only bound by the apex court judgments and not by the rulings of high courts.

Appearing before the bench, Musharraf’s counsel Raza Bashir sought 15 to 20 days for his client to record a statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc). “Musharraf deserves the right to fair trial,” he said.

Justice Akbar noted that the former army chief had been provided six opportunities to record a statement but he didn’t. Justice Waqar added that the special court had even allowed the former military ruler to appear before the bench at his convenience.

“Musharraf should be given the right to defend himself,” Advocate Bashir implored again. “Both the prosecution team and his counsel are already defending him before the bench,” Justice Akbar shot back.

Speaking to the media after the judgment was announced, Musharraf's lawyer Akhtar Shah said the case against his client was “unfair, no doubt about that”.

“We have always maintained it was a wrong case,” he told reporters. “Pervez Musharraf has developed this country, he respected the rule of law and freedom of press, and the way he served the country, no one else did.”

Shah also sought to defend the proclamation of emergency rule by Musharraf in 2007, saying it was “good for the country during those times” and was only promulgated after extensive consultations.

Shah added that Musharraf had wanted to return to Pakistan to record a statement but had not been offered sufficient security measures to ensure his safety.

Musharraf, who has challenged the special court formation in the Lahore High Court, has a couple of options. He can challenge Tuesday’s verdict in the Supreme Court. And if the apex court upholds his conviction, he can seek a presidential pardon under Article 45 of the Constitution.

The case against the former leader had been pending since 2013, when his old rival, Nawaz Sharif, was in power. Musharraf was booked in the high treason case in December 2013 and indicted on March 31, 2014, but the trial was delayed and he left for Dubai two years later to seek treatment.

The trail continued in his long absence and the bench had been reconstituted six times as judges recused themselves from hearing the case, resulting in the delay.

Even the judgment was delayed for more than a couple of weeks. The special court was expected to announce on Nov 28 its verdict which it had reserved on November 19.

But the government, through the interior ministry, filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking to stop the special court “from passing judgment”.

Subsequently, an IHC bench, headed by Chief Justice Athar Minallah, stopped the special court from issuing the verdict and directed the government to notify a new prosecution team by Dec 5 as the government had sacked the previous prosecutors appointed by the PML-N government.

On Dec 5, Advocate Ali Zia Bajwa of the new prosecution team had sought a “reasonable amount of time” to prepare arguments. He was given until December 17 by the special court to give arguments before the verdict was announced.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>High treason: Justice Naqvi refers Musharraf's stay plea to LHC CJ Khan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119460/high-treason-justice-naqvi-refers-musharrafs-stay-plea-lhc-cj-khan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2119460/high-treason-justice-naqvi-refers-musharrafs-stay-plea-lhc-cj-khan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 19 05:30:40 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2119460</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[In his petition, the former army chief had requested the high court to declare the treason trial unconstitutional]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A divisional bench of the Lahore High Court comprising Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi on Tuesday referred the petition filed by Musharraf seeking a stay in the proceedings of the high treason trial in special court to LHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan and requested the constitution of a full bench to hear the petition.

In his petition, the former army chief had requested the high court to declare the high treason trial including the initial complaint as unconstitutional. Through the petition, he maintains that the high treason complaint was filed without the then federal cabinet's approval and claims that the former premier Nawaz Sharif had constituted the special court on his own discretion.

He also requests the high court order Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate alleged aiders and abettors for proper appreciation of facts and evidence at trial.

The petition also raised objections over the formulation of special court and constitution of the prosecution team, claiming that it violated the essence of Articles 90 and 91 of the Constitution.

LHC seeks govt’s reply on Musharraf’s plea on Tuesday

Case history

The high treason case was filed against the former president by the PML-N government in 2013 for clamping the state of emergency on November 3, 2007. Musharraf was booked in the high treason case in December 2013 and indicted on March 31, 2014.

Courtesy to litigation at appellate forums, the trial was delayed and the former army chief was allowed by the courts as well as the interior ministry to leave Pakistan in March 2016.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>LHC seeks govt’s reply on Musharraf’s plea on Tuesday</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2118773/high-treason-lhc-issues-notice-federal-govt-musharrafs-stay-application</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2118773/high-treason-lhc-issues-notice-federal-govt-musharrafs-stay-application#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 19 08:01:06 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2118773</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Special court all set to announce verdict in high treason case against former president on Tuesday]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court on Monday issued a notice to the federal government, seeking a reply till Tuesday on the civil miscellaneous application filed by former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf challenging the formulation of the special court trying him for allegedly committing high treason.

It came while Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi was hearing the petition filed by the former army chief seeking a stay in proceedings in the treason case.

Earlier this month, a three-judge special court – which has been hearing Musharraf’s treason trial since December 2013 – said that it would announce its verdict on December 17 after hearing the arguments of the new prosecution team appointed by the government.

In an interview on Express News show, Centre Stage last week, Interior Minister Ijaz Shah said the government believes legal requirements have not been completed in the high treason case against the former military ruler and that he “has not been given [right to] fair trial”.

He questioned the entire premise of the high treason charge brought in against Musharraf by the Nawaz Sharif-led government in 2013 for subverting the Constitution, saying that the “order under which he had been booked was wrong”. He said it would be travesty of justice if a man accused of murder was not given the right to defend himself.

During the proceedings, Musharraf’s counsel Azhar Siddique argued that it was unconstitutional for the special court to hear the high treason case against the former dictator as the matter was not approved by the then federal cabinet.

“Former premier Nawaz Sharif had constituted the special court on his own discretion,” he added.

Justice Naqvi asked, “Would it be reasonable to form a full bench to hear Musharraf’s petitions?”

Musharraf and the government’s lawyers replied the court had nearly heard the entire matter and there was no need to form a full bench.

Case history

The high treason case was filed against the former president by the PML-N government in 2013 for clamping the state of emergency on November 3, 2007. Musharraf was booked in the high treason case in December 2013 and indicted on March 31, 2014.

Courtesy to litigation at appellate forums, the trial was delayed and the former army chief was allowed by the courts as well as the interior ministry to leave Pakistan in March 2016.

The delays

A three-member special court – comprising Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) Waqar Seth, Justice Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court (SHC) and Justice Shahid Karim of the LHC – is expected to announce verdict in the long-overdue high treason case on Tuesday (December 17).

The decision, reserved on November 19, was originally fixed to be announced on November 28. However, the PTI government through the office of the interior ministry via the attorney general for Pakistan filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking to restrain the special court “from passing final judgment”.

The IHC bench stopped the special court from issuing the verdict and directed the government to notify a new prosecution team. The next hearing is scheduled for December 17.

Petition in LHC

In the petition, Musharraf requested the high court to stay the trial being conducted in absentia until he is fit to appear in court and to order the interior ministry and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate alleged aiders and abettors for proper appreciation of facts and evidence at trial.

The petition also raised objections over the formulation of special court and constitution of the prosecution team, claiming that it violated the essence of Articles 90 and 91 of the Constitution.Article 90: exercise of executive authority of the Federation

(1) Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, consisting of the Prime Minister and the Federal Ministers, which shall act through the Prime Minister, who shall be the chief executive of the Federation.

(2) In the performance of his functions under the Constitution, the Prime Minster may act either directly or through the Federal Ministers.

Article 91: the cabinet

(1) There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers, with the Prime Minister at its head, to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.

(2) The National Assembly shall meet on the twenty-first day following the day on which a general election to the Assembly is held, unless sooner summoned by the President.

(3) After the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, the National Assembly shall, to the exclusion of any other business, proceed to elect without debate one of its Muslim members to be the Prime Minister.

(4) The Prime Minister shall be elected by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the National Assembly:

Provided that, if no member secures such majority in the first poll, a second poll shall be held between the members who secure the two highest numbers of votes in the first poll and the member who secures a majority of votes of the members present and voting shall be declared to have been elected as Prime Minister: Provided further that, if the number of votes secured by two or more members securing the highest number of votes is equal, further poll shall be held between them until one of them secures a majority of votes of the members present and voting.

(5) The member elected under clause (4) shall be called upon by the President to assume the office of Prime Minister and he shall, before entering upon the office, make before the President oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule: Provided that there shall be no restriction on the number of terms for the office of the Prime Minister.

(6) The Cabinet, together with the Ministers of State, shall be collectively responsible to the Senate and the National Assembly.

(7) The Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the President, but the President shall not exercise his powers under this clause unless he is satisfied that the Prime Minister does not command the confidence of the majority of the members of the National Assembly, in which case he shall summon the National Assembly and require the Prime Minister to obtain a vote of confidence from the Assembly.

(8) The Prime Minister may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.

(9) A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the National Assembly shall, at the expiration of that period, cease to be a Minister and shall not before the dissolution of that Assembly be again appointed a Minister unless he is elected a member of that Assembly: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to a Minister who is member of the Senate.

(10) Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed as disqualifying the Prime Minister or any other Minister or a Minister of State for continuing in office during any period during which the National Assembly stands dissolved, or as preventing the appointment of any person as Prime Minister or other Minister or a Minister of State during any such period.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf not given ‘fair trial’ in treason case: interior minister</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2116631/musharraf-denied-fair-trial-treason-case</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2116631/musharraf-denied-fair-trial-treason-case#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 19 19:02:00 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rehman Azhar]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2116631</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Interior Minister Ijaz Shah says govt believes legal requirements not met]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Interior Minister Ijaz Shah has said that the government believes legal requirements have not been completed in the high treason case against former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf and that he “has not been given [right to] fair trial”.

A three-judge special court – which has been taken up with the Musharraf treason trial since December 2013 – has said that it will announce its verdict on December 17 after hearing the arguments of the new prosecution team appointed by the government.

“Musharraf is the first man [in Pakistan’s history] who has been tried under Article VI [of the Constitution]. And this government believes it will be unfair if all the steps in the criminal justice procedure are not completed against him,” Shah said in an interview on Express News show, Centre Stage, on Thursday.

He said the government believes that Musharraf “should be given a fair chance”. “If you’re trying him [for treason], then there should be proper prosecution; he should be allowed to produce witnesses in his defence… the law should take its own course and all steps in the criminal justice procedure should be completed,” he added.

Ijaz Shah, who has remained a close associate of Gen (retd) Musharraf, insisted that it was not his personal viewpoint. “It is the viewpoint of this government,” said Shah, who had also served as Director General of Intelligence Bureau of Pakistan from 2004 to 2008.

He questioned the entire premise of the high treason charge brought in against Musharraf by the Nawaz Sharif-led government in 2013 for subverting the Constitution, saying that the “order under which he had been booked was wrong”. He said it would be travesty of justice if a man accused of murder was not given the right to defend himself.

Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution says, “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

High treason case: LHC admits Musharraf’s petition to stay special court proceedings

“All legal processes must be completed in a trail under Article 6 because the punishment for treason is death or imprisonment for life,” said Shah.

He repeatedly parried a direct answer when asked if the government considers proclamation of a state of emergency is subversion of the Constitution. Shah referred to the observation of the Lahore High Court (LHC) which asked the prosecution on Tuesday if the imposition of emergency rule in 2007 by Musharraf falls under the ambit of Article 6. The LHC is hearing a petition from Musharraf seeking restraining order against the special court from announcing his verdict.

Shah also referred to the November 27 order of the Islamabad High Court in which it had stopped the special court from giving its judgment on December 5 while directing the government to notify a new prosecution team.

Zardari’s release on bail
The interior minister said PPP Co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari had the right to get bail on medical grounds because he is not a convict and his case is in the investigation phase. “If a convict can go abroad, then Asif Zardari also deserves bail on medical grounds,” he said while referring to PML-N supremo who has been allowed by the court to travel abroad for medical treatment.

Zardari released from custody

Shah sought to dispel the impression that Zardari was freed on bail after some understanding with the government. “He was given bail [by the IHC] on the recommendations of a medical board constituted on its orders,” he added. “The government has nothing to do with his release. I personally believe he is sick and I hope he recovers soon to defend the charges against him.”

Nawaz’s departure
Shah admitted that Nawaz Sharif’s departure to London put the ruling PTI in a bind, as it dented the party’s vote-bank. He categorically denied the PML-N supremo was allowed to travel abroad under some “deal”. “We will approach the Punjab government if he doesn’t return in four weeks,” he added.

The Lahore High Court granted Nawaz one-time permission to travel abroad for four weeks to seek treatment for his undiagnosed medical condition. Currently, he is receiving treatment in London, but family and party sources say that he might be flown to the United States.

No more relief for the Sharifs

He questioned the decision to let a convicted person to fly abroad. “I do not blame the court or the government. There is an impression that we have two sets of laws in this country – and removing a convict’s name from ECL on medical grounds only strengthens this impression,” he added.

Shah, however, said that the government would not allow PML-N Vice President Maryam Safdar to travel to London to see her ailing father. Maryam has petitioned the LHC seeking return of her passport and removal of her name from the no-fly list, so that she can fly to London to visit her father. The LHC referred her request to the interior ministry.

“Her siblings and relatives are already there to look after Nawaz. Why does she need to travel to London,” he questioned.

Lawyers’ attack on PIC
The interior minister called on Wednesday’s rampaging of Punjab Institute of Cardiology in Lahore the “worst tragedy that has befallen the country in its history”.

“I don’t know if I shall call it painful or shameful. Hospitals had not been attacked even during the world wars,” he said, adding that it was disappointing to see the “most educated class” of society storming a hospital.

FIRs registered against lawyers for attack on Punjab Institute of Cardiology

He added that two FIRs have been registered against the lawyers. “The attack involved around 500 people, while we have identified 35 to 40 of them through the video and CCTV footage of the incident,” he said and held out an assurance that the perpetrators would be given exemplary punishment.

BRT investigation
Shah said it was not for the National Accountability Bureau to decide whether the government would stay in office or not. The NAB chairman recently said that the bureau was waiting for the vacation of stay by the court to file reference regarding alleged financial irregularities in Peshawar’s Rapid Bus Transport (BRT) project and Swat’s Malam Jabba sports resort project.

“The FIA is conducting an independent inquiry into the BRT scandal. There is no harm in admitting if anything went wrong or mistakes were committed,” he said.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Musharraf treason case: IHC ruling barring special court from announcing verdict challenged in SC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2116289/musharraf-treason-case-ihc-ruling-barring-special-court-announcing-verdict-challenged-sc</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2116289/musharraf-treason-case-ihc-ruling-barring-special-court-announcing-verdict-challenged-sc#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 19 08:04:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[​ Our Correspondent]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2116289</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[IHC judgment is contrary to the Constitution and the law of Pakistan, says petition]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict barring the special court from announcing a decision in the long-overdue high treason case against former dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was challenged in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The November 27 decision, which came a day before the verdict was due, was announced by a two-member bench comprising Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani. The petition was filed by the interior ministry.

Filed by former president Lahore High Court Bar Association Taufiq Asif, the petition questions the jurisdiction of the IHC to
examine proceedings pending before the special court comprising high court judges.

It also questions whether the high court has jurisdiction to assume the role of an appellate court.

Furthermore, the petition also questions the maintainability of the interior ministry’s petition on grounds that it maybe have been filed “with ulterior motives”.

It said there were attempts to “withdraw the case inter alia” on the grounds that the federal cabinet’s approval was not taken at the time of the filing of the complaint against Musharraf.

The petitioner further argued that the IHC judgment is contrary to the Constitution and the law of Pakistan. The petition notes that the former army chief was also declared a proclaimed offender due to failure to appear before the special court.

The petition prayed to the apex court to set aside IHC verdict and declare it without lawful authority and jurisdiction thus of consequence.

Govt seeks to stop Musharraf treason case verdict

The IHC decision

In its verdict, the high court ordered the federal government to notify a new prosecutor by December 5 and directed the special court to fix a date for "affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing" to the newly-notified prosecution team and Musharraf's counsel.

The bench observed that the special court was expected to "take into consideration" the grounds raised in an application filed by the former president seeking acquittal.

"The learned special court is expected to conclude the proceedings expeditiously having [regard] to the cardinal principles of a fair trial," said the short order.

The high court also allowed Musharraf's counsel Barrister Salman Safdar to assist the counsel appointed for the ex-president during the hearing.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Do Musharraf’s actions fall under Article 6, asks LHC</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2114839/lhc-adjourns-hearing-musharrafs-petition-till-dec-17</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2114839/lhc-adjourns-hearing-musharrafs-petition-till-dec-17#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 19 08:33:00 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2114839</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Court adjourns hearing of former president’s petition till 17th]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday questioned as to former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s imposition of emergency rule in 2007 fell under the ambit of Article 6 of the Constitution.

The court resumed the hearing of a petition filed by the former president, who sought a stay on treason case trial being conducted against him until he recuperated and appeared before the court.

According to Article 6, any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

A person found guilty of high treason, as defined in Article 6 of the Constitution, shall be punishable with death or life imprisonment.
“Isn’t declaring an emergency and abrogating the Constitution two separate things?” Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi asked Additional Attorney General Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan.

“Where does the Article 6 apply? What does the Supreme Court judgment say?” Justice Naqvi probed further.

Musharraf’s counsel pleaded that the petition against his client was filed on the directives of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif instead of the federal government.

The court adjourned the hearing till December 17 and directed Additional Attorney General Ishtiaq A Khan to discuss the matter with the interior secretary on whether the formal military ruler imposing emergency in 2007 amounted to the abrogation of the Constitution.

The court further asked whether or not the complaint could be withdrawn at this stage and sought the interior secretary’s opinion on how Musharraf’s 2007 action fell under Article 6.
Musharraf has maintained that owing to his deteriorating health, multiple life-threatening ailments and of his aged mother, he was unable to return to Pakistan despite having a strong desire to do so.

The former military ruler, who is currently in Dubai for treatment of a ‘rare’ medical condition, recently recorded a video message from his hospital bed in which he said that he was ready to record his statement in the case.

“A judicial commission can come here and hear me out. It must see my health condition and make a decision. The commission, with my lawyer, must then be heard in the court,” he added.

On November 29, the Islamabad High Court (IHC), while hearing a petition of the interior ministry, had restrained a special court from announcing its verdict in the Musharraf treason case.

In a two-page brief order, the IHC asked the special court to hear the pleas of all sides and decide the case “in accordance with the law” while directing the government to form a new prosecution team for the case by December 5.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>LHC seeks Musharraf treason case record by 10th</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2110994/lhc-orders-govt-submit-record-musharraf-treason-case-dec-10</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/2110994/lhc-orders-govt-submit-record-musharraf-treason-case-dec-10#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 19 09:56:45 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Rana Yasif]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=2110994</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Lawyer says complaint against his client was illegally filed on Nawaz’s directives]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday ordered the federal government to submit the record of the high-treason case against former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf by December 10.

The record includes details about the formation of a special court, which Musharraf’s lawyer claims, illegally conducted his client’s trial.

Justice Naqvi asked Reza Bashir -- the government lawyer – if he had brought the record of Musharraf’s case. Bashir responded that he was unable to obtain the record as the case was still pending in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Musharraf’s counsel Muhammad Azhar Siddique contended that the complaint against Musharraf had to be filed by the federal government. Instead, it was filed on the directives of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

He added that the prosecution team was formed on Nawaz’s directives instead of the federal government.

“The special court had to be formed with the approval of the cabinet, but it was formed on the directives of the former prime minister,” he told the court.

“The legal formalities in Article 10-A were not adopted. This was not only against the dictum of the due process of law but also the basic principles of natural justice.”

Musharraf’s counsel further argued that the proceedings carried out in pursuance of the complaint were also in violation of Sections 4, 5 and 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1976.

Justice Syed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi inquired as to how could an act carried out in October 1999 make an act on November 3, 2007 fall under treason.

During the previous hearing, Justice Naqvi had questioned as to how Musharraf’s act in 2007 fell under treason.

Petitioner Pervez Musharraf, in his petition, had made a request to the LHC to stay the trial in absentia being conducted against him until he recuperates and appears before the court.

He maintained that owing to his deteriorating health, multiple life-threatening ailments and of his aged mother, he is unable to return to Pakistan ever since, despite having a strong desire to do so.

Last month, the government petitioned the IHC to set aside the November 19 order of a special court trying the former military ruler for “subverting the Constitution” in 2007.

The surprise move came on a day when the LHC took up a similar plea filed by Musharraf, asking his attorney to argue on the maintainability of his client’s petition. It is for the first time in Pakistan’s history that a former army chief has faced prosecution for high treason.

The three-judge special court – headed by Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth – had reserved its verdict on November 19 while rejecting the interior ministry’s request for more time to notify a new prosecution team to wrap up the case. It had also rejected a request from Musharraf’s counsel to adjourn hearings and noted that the defence could also submit its written arguments by November 26.

According to Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution, any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

And a person found guilty of high treason as defined in Article 6 of the Constitution, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
