ISLAMABAD: As the high treason trial against former military ruler (retd) General Pervez Musharraf enters into its advanced stage, Musharraf’s legal team claimed before a three-judge special court that Article 6 of the Constitution is not implementable.
Leading defence counsel Farogh Nasim, while cross-examining Interior Secretary Shahid Khan, said that no action of Musharraf falls under Article 6 of the Constitution.
Nasim also targeted Musharraf’s successor former army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani several times.
The interior secretary -- who is also a complainant in the case -- said he is not a constitutional expert to define Article 6, and refuted the claim of the defence team that Musharraf’s case did not come under it.
Nasim revealed his fear that summaries, letters and documents related to the consultation process for the promulgation of emergency rule in 2007 have been destroyed or conceived by the federal government and the interior secretary - a claim denied by Interior Secretary Khan.
The interior secretary confessed that a joint investigation team (JIT) could not approach the General Headquarters (GHQ) to get the required record in order to ascertain who the aiders, abettors and facilitators of Musharraf were in his decision for the promulgation of emergency rule in the country on November 3, 2007.
The federal secretary -- who also faced harsh questions regarding his alleged closeness with the Sharif brothers from the defence counsel -- said that the JIT did not record statements, and no legal action has been taken against any senior army officials because there was no evidence of abetment against then army chief Kayani, services chiefs, corps commanders and any other senior member of the armed forces.
Khan also confessed that no commission was formed to oversee the investigation in this case as was promised by the premier, and argued that the prime minister gave a general statement. However, the court also observed that the prime minister’s statement was incorporated in one of the orders of the Supreme Court (SC).
Answering another question, Khan said that following illegal orders and failing to dissent don’t come under the definition of aiders, abetment and facilitators. Khan said that he had heard that the apex court held that following illegal orders is also no excuse in various judgments.
Nasim then asked whether Kayani was also involved in the abetment from 3rd November 2007 to 15 December 2007 for not withdrawing the emergency order. In response, the interior secretary stated that he was not in a position to state whether or not he was to be regarded as an aider or abettor.
Nasim said that the charges and inquiry report of the JIT is partial, incomplete, inaccurate, biased, malicious, fraudulent and mala fide. However, the secretary did not agree with the counsel.
Nasim also revealed his apprehensions that Gen Musharraf was targeted only on the behest of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
One of the main reasons then cabinet members and legislators were given a clean slate was because they are also present in the ruling party and federal cabinet, Nasim claimed.
Nasim said that the SC allowed Musharraf to hold dual offices in 2005. Similarly in 2008, in the Tikka Iqbal case, the apex court validated the steps taken by Musharraf.
The interior secretary also said that he might have asked the investigation team’s members regarding the failure to record a statement of military officials and access to GHQ to ascertain the record but could not remember each and everything.
Nasim asked Khan if he approached any court after he was denied access to the GHQ record, to which the complainant replied “no”.
The interior secretary, who served as secretary industries and home secretary in previous the Punjab government under Shahbaz Sharif and remained posted in Saudi Arabia when the Sharif family was in exile, avoided many crucial questions asked by the defence team.
Three low cardre officials will be cross-examined by the defence team on Thursday (tomorrow).
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ObserverUSA: you are correct,uprooting an elected govt is a very serious act, and Gen M uprooted the govt of NS in Oct 1999, so why this act has been ignored ? because then most of the judges including Ch Ifthekhar sb would have been in a soup, as he administered oath to him & also legalized take over....all those judges have been given immunity by the PPP govt through act of parliament in 2008...and through 18th amendment.,. So, what justice are we talking about ? yes ! our leaders and many like including the judges etc; they may get away from this kind of selective justice in this world, but they have to be answerable to Allah swt here in this world and herein after.
The constitution is very clear on abettors. Therefore all abettors including 'baakiyaat' of Zia ul Haq are as much accountable. Trying one individual (or victimizing one individual) is not going to solve the problem.
@excalibur: "Excalibur" historically the legendary sword of King Arthur of England is now a "registered?" name of a hotel in Las Vegas. There are other noms de plume, pen names, pseudonyms, which one can use.
@excalibur:
Certainly Musharraf is guilty of usurping power and delaying the reestablishment of democracy.
The Supreme Court decides acts amount to suspension/abeyance of Constitution. (Indeed, in its indictment of Musharraf, the Supreme Court has already determined that the Constitution was suspended.) To my knowledge, uprooting an elected government is subversion. Besides, jailing more than 60 judges is a feat which was not surpassed by even the worst dictators of the world, including Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.
(An act of parliament, including the 18th Amendment or any other act whatsoever is not an act of a couple of individuals. It is an act of legislative body, which represents the nation.)
@ abrogation
Dont mislead the nation , Musharraf never ABROGATED OR SUBVERTED the Constituition.
He held only afew clauses in ABEYANCE FOR 45 DAYS ONLY And ABEYANCE was never a cilpable offence under Article 6 up until 2010 when Nawaz and Zardari added this word maliciously under the 18th Amendment with the mala fide intention now so obvious
Musharraf's defence need to bring up holding constitution in ABEYANCE for 5/6 weeks in Nov 2007 was not unlawful,most people are not even aware of it,due to media,some anti musharraf journalists not highlighting this fact,those that are aware just turn a blind eye to it,corrupt PPP rule in 2010 made holding constitution in abeyance unlawful in the 18th amendment,if there was proper justice in Pakistan this case would been thrown out,kangaroo court just following Sharif clan orders of personal vendetta.
Abrogating, suspending, putting in abeyance of the Constitution is plain and simple treason, as per the Constitution of Pakistan. And, law works according to the Constitution or it should and the Supreme Court is unlikely to violate the Constitution. As regards the Constitution, personal views have little value or relevance.
@Gp65: Exactly and you are right........ BUT my point is that he is being tried for the wrong offense but that's just a personal view.
@Parvez: Treason is a strong word. But it is your constitution that deems abrogating the constitution as treason. I do not think he is being troed for the effectiveness and efficiency of his 9 year regime.
The Court can convict, then the parliament can decide the punishment. But the Court seems to be under some pressure that is why it is dragging the proceedings.
Musharraf should have been tried for the 1999 offense, along with the abetters. Sadly, the personal vendetta of the Sharif Family, and the notion of selective justice by their lackies has ruined the case. Their incompetence and their malafide intentions will bury the impractical deterrence of article 6 for good.
@sabi: Your comments reflect your ignorance and that you have no idea what you are talking about. The development done in Musharraf's time is far more than you will ever understand. You need to read and understand and stop making foolish comments.
@K Alam: yeah and even the constitution is not implementable. Let all thieves, thugs, murders, crooks leave the country peacefully to enjoy their bounty abroad like Mush.
The lead counsel of PM has rightly summed it up as "Article 6 of the Constitution is not implementable"
@sabi:
There were and are other usurpers like Ayub khan, yahya khan and Zia ul haq whose period has been known to be the darkest of all....you forget that, because of Gen Zia we had influx of Afghan refugees, klashinkov, drugs and mushrooming of unlimited madrasahs churning out talibans and jihadists.....what we are witnessing today is not because of Gen M......so why single out Gen M only...?
death sentence is the only suitable punishment for his acts which took pushed Pakistan back by 30 years or so, brought taliban bombings, compromised on integrity of country by allowing drone attacks, oppressed the will of people by not holding elections, overthrowing and insulting the elected PM, the CJP amongst many others
There cannot be anything less than death sentence for his heneous crimes of which only a few are listed above
@Sabi.... The country would be burning who so ever would have been in power in those ten years. Because the seeds we sowed in 2 decades following his tenure had turned into proper trees. None the less anyone trying to stop these cruel barbarian would have put the country in same disarray
One can give any definition to Musharraf's action, the fact of the matter is that he is a goner.
Stop this politicised vendetta against the true patriot and leader sir Pervez Musharraf. He is the true visionary and leader.
No one can hurt Musharaf.....Musharaf zindabad.
Even if he escapes trail for some obvious reasons,his status in Pakistan troubled history as usurper will never change.Facts can not be changed and fact is he put Pakistan back in Stone Age .He came to change the fate of Pakistan in the guise of Messiah but when he left after nine years the whole world witnessed this country burning from north to south and from east to west.He will never be rememberd in good terms but as selfish man.
Well Done, Legal Team.
Realistically they are correct......treason is a strong word. Not doing what he should have done in his EIGHT long years of almost absolute power is what he he must be held accountable for........and let that be a president for those to come.