SC wants comprehensive reply from govt for Musharraf treason case

Why didn't the law ministry take action against the former president, asks apex court.

Web Desk April 15, 2013
File photo of former president Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the attorney general to submit a written reply explaining the federal government’s stance regarding former president Pervez Musharraf’s treason case, Express News reported on Monday.

The SC had earlier asked the representative of the federal government (attorney general) to present himself in court but he failed to do so.

“We aren’t giving out invitations [which one can deny], we issued a notice to him [attorney general] and he should have come,” the court said.

The law ministry was supposed to arrest Musharraf upon his arrival and take action against him according to article six, the court said.

“What steps did the ministry take?” the court further questioned the law minister present at the hearing. The minister argued that the interior ministry was supposed to take action against Musharraf which further enraged the bench.

The court hence decided to hear a comprehensive reply by the government before proceeding further with the case.

The case was adjourned till April 17.

A two-member bench was formed – comprising of Justice Jawwad S Khawja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain – to hear the petition filed by Advocate Taufiq Asif, the president of Rawalpindi chapter of the Lahore High Court Bar Association.

Five identical petitions were heard for him to be tried for high treason and subversion of the Constitution.


Most Read


Javeed | 8 years ago | Reply

@BKhan We do agree with 1st part of the statement "Judiciary first clean it's lower courts" District, appeal n additional courts are in total mess. Judge comes, lawyers are absent, lawyer comes judge is on sick leave or attending high court meetings. If by chance judge/lawyers are present case is given next date. One wonders Why defendant or plaintiff even bother to come for hearing. Lower courts Judges n Lawyers are there only to delay any n all decisions, both layers busy sucking the blood of unfortunate clients n Judges concern their salaries - Justice can go to he'll.

BKhan | 8 years ago | Reply

I wish the good for nothing judiciary could first clean their own lower courts first instead of running after a person who had done more goods than bad. What is the CJ has on his list of goods.. i dont think there's anything significant he has done.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ