Musharraf’s treason trial: Court wants abettors in charge-sheet
A special court hearing the treason charges against former military ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has directed the government to include the names of three senior ex-functionaries in the charge-sheet.
The order to submit an amended or additional statement as well as statement of formal charges against former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, ex-federal minister Zahid Hamid and former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar within a fortnight came after 79 hearings.
The short order, delivered at courtroom No. 6 of the Federal Shariat Court at 12:07pm on Friday – saddened the prosecutor, Akram Sheikh, who asked the registrar of the court to supply him with an attested copy of the judgment, which, he said, would be challenged in the apex court.
With a majority vote, the special court raised serious questions over the credibility of the investigations carried out by the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) three-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) – constituted by the federal government with the approval of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
“Though the courts are not to interfere with the manner in which investigations are carried out, but when selective or inclusive investigation is pointed out to a court, it becomes necessary to interfere to correct the wrong,” the judgment said.
Musharraf was formally charged in March this year for subverting and circumventing the Constitution by imposing emergency on November 3, 2007 – charges that he denies.
“We fail to understand why investigators did not identify others when they found material during the investigation, which, in their opinion, connected others as well with the November 3 action. The investigators ought to have taken their suspicion against unidentified persons to its logical conclusion, and in not doing so the investigators had left their assignment half finished,” it said.
The court said the prosecution – on receiving such a deficient report – ought to have thrown it back to the investigators to identify others who may have been also involved in the offence. “The competent authority on its part also failed to react to such half-hearted and inconclusive investigative work,” the court noted.
The court, however, avoided to implicate lawmakers for adopting a resolution in favour of emergency rule. The written order said no one could be implicated without active involvement.
A top member of the prosecution team told The Express Tribune that it is a bad judgment and they would approach the Supreme Court for its reversal in the light of the dissenting note of Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Yawar Ali—a member of the Special Court’s three-judge bench also including Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Tahira Safdar.
Relying on former Punjab governor Khalid Maqbool’s statement that he was never consulted, Justice Yawar had written that the applicant [Musharraf] himself accepted that as army chief he had imposed emergency, adding that no witness had appeared before the court in support of Musharraf.
In its judgment, the court said former law minister Zahid Hamid and former premier Shaukat Aziz consulted each other “which shows the rule of emergency was pre-planned”.
“We are, therefore, of the view that a joinder of the then prime minister and then federal law minister and [former CJ] Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar is necessary to secure the ends of justice,” the judgment said.
The court admitted that by joining the as co-accused, the conclusion of this trial might get delayed. “But where a charge of abetment is to be tried then the right thing to do is to order a joint trial along with the accused, which is also a mandatory requirement of the code of the criminal procedure,” the order said.
Earlier this year, Musharraf’s counsel Farogh Naseem had requested the court to include accomplices in the trial. Labeling the request as premature, Prosecutor Akram Sheikh had said the issue regarding the co-accused could be raised when witnesses record their testimonies.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 22nd, 2014.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725612926-0/Tribune-Pic-(8)1725612926-0-165x106.webp "article")
Now the case get entangled .
Let better sense pervail!. When Musharraf returned to Pakistan to contest elections he knew about the various charges he would face other than the treaon charge. He maintained nothing woluld stick since he knew how the judiciary worked in Pakistan. He was right: Since returning he has been put on exit control. He has been denied his human rights to contest in a fair election. He has been denied fair playing fields in politics. Now that the very serious charge of treason is open to doubt is it not time to close the pandora's Box and move on to pressing problems at hand. Musharraf has spent his life fighting for his country. He has not looted it like others. He has openly admitted making mistakes and apologised. Does it mean he should be condemmed to gallows? The present PM was a condemmed man but was pardoned by the very man who now faces his wrath. Let us remember that i can express my views in this august newspaper is due to Musharraf. Let us forget the past where there is nothing but pain and move to the future where there is healing---that is if we want to move on.
“We fail to understand why investigators did not identify others when they found material during the investigation, which, in their opinion, connected others as well with the November 3 action. The investigators ought to have taken their suspicion against unidentified persons to its logical conclusion, and in not doing so the investigators had left their assignment half finished,”
The above observation of the Hon Court proves beyond doubt the mala fide intentions of the Nawaz Govt.
Selective justice is defective justice. Article 6 of the Constitution applies to all acts and actors of subversion of constitution since 1956. Article 12 is quite clear on this. Applying it selectively to one individual would be difficult to defend.
Excellento! Viva! Bravo Special Court! That's the way to be impartial and unbiased. Why did the GoP try to 'blindside' Musharraf? Because, of personal hatred. Salams
Fine, sentence all four of them .