Pandora’s box: Shaukat Aziz’s ‘secret letter’ led to emergency says Musharraf’s counsel
Says ex-PM and other govt officials also responsible for November 3, 2007 actions.
Urging the court to direct the removal of Musharraf’s name from the ECL, Satti said that the former president was “needed by his ailing 95 year old mother in Dubai. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
If you thought that the November 3, 2007 emergency was imposed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf alone, then his legal counsel would like to convince you otherwise.
A three-member Supreme Court bench was told on Tuesday that the emergency was imposed on the basis of a top secret letter written by then prime minister Shaukat Aziz which contained the names of all government functionaries who were taken on board.
Taking the plea that Musharraf alone could not be held responsible for the imposition of emergency, his counsel Raja Ibrahim Satti said:
“The offence of treason is an offence of conspiracy or mutiny and can never be attributed to a single person as all the conspirators, executioners or persons obeying such a command are equally liable.”
Presenting his case before the apex court bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Satti cast a wide net when he claimed that “the judges who had violated their oath and taken oaths under the new setup are also liable, therefore there will be a long list for the purpose of prosecution.”
The bench, with Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan as the other two members, was hearing six identical petitions seeking the initiation of a trial against Musharraf under article 6 of the constitution and the provisions of the High Treason Act 1973. Satti, a member of a team of lawyers representing the former dictator, argued that the July 31, 2009 judgment by a 14-judge bench declaring 2007 emergency as unconstitutional was faulty as Musharraf alone had been condemned, and that too unheard.
He also argued that all the petitions banked heavily on the 2009 judgment and an order of the SC issued on November 2007, but both the decisions were biased and needed to be revisited by a full bench.“We filed an application with the Chief Justice for a full-court or a larger bench but he only added a judge in the two-member bench apparently rejecting our application”, said advocate Satti, who will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Recalling the statements of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Satti said that the chief justice had stated on a number of occasions that he would not hear cases involving Musharraf, yet he headed both the 2007 and 2009 benches.
Trying to challenge the PCO oath of the apex court judges, Musharraf’s lawyer took the position that since the 18th amendment had declared the October 12 1999 act unconstitutional, oaths taken under the PCO were invalid, which is why the judges could not hear the case against Musharraf. “A judge cannot be a judge in his own case as happened while hearing the petitions against November 2007,” said Satti.
Urging the court to direct the removal of Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL), he said that the former president was “needed by his ailing 95 year old mother in Dubai.” Justice Khilji replied that whenever the former president needed to go out of the country he could file an application and the court would pass an appropriate order.
Later, while talking to the media, tears welled up in the eyes of advocate Ahmed Raza Kasuri as he described the health of Musharraf’s ailing mother.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 24th, 2013.
If you thought that the November 3, 2007 emergency was imposed by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf alone, then his legal counsel would like to convince you otherwise.
A three-member Supreme Court bench was told on Tuesday that the emergency was imposed on the basis of a top secret letter written by then prime minister Shaukat Aziz which contained the names of all government functionaries who were taken on board.
Taking the plea that Musharraf alone could not be held responsible for the imposition of emergency, his counsel Raja Ibrahim Satti said:
“The offence of treason is an offence of conspiracy or mutiny and can never be attributed to a single person as all the conspirators, executioners or persons obeying such a command are equally liable.”
Presenting his case before the apex court bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Satti cast a wide net when he claimed that “the judges who had violated their oath and taken oaths under the new setup are also liable, therefore there will be a long list for the purpose of prosecution.”
The bench, with Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan as the other two members, was hearing six identical petitions seeking the initiation of a trial against Musharraf under article 6 of the constitution and the provisions of the High Treason Act 1973. Satti, a member of a team of lawyers representing the former dictator, argued that the July 31, 2009 judgment by a 14-judge bench declaring 2007 emergency as unconstitutional was faulty as Musharraf alone had been condemned, and that too unheard.
He also argued that all the petitions banked heavily on the 2009 judgment and an order of the SC issued on November 2007, but both the decisions were biased and needed to be revisited by a full bench.“We filed an application with the Chief Justice for a full-court or a larger bench but he only added a judge in the two-member bench apparently rejecting our application”, said advocate Satti, who will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Recalling the statements of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Satti said that the chief justice had stated on a number of occasions that he would not hear cases involving Musharraf, yet he headed both the 2007 and 2009 benches.
Trying to challenge the PCO oath of the apex court judges, Musharraf’s lawyer took the position that since the 18th amendment had declared the October 12 1999 act unconstitutional, oaths taken under the PCO were invalid, which is why the judges could not hear the case against Musharraf. “A judge cannot be a judge in his own case as happened while hearing the petitions against November 2007,” said Satti.
Urging the court to direct the removal of Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL), he said that the former president was “needed by his ailing 95 year old mother in Dubai.” Justice Khilji replied that whenever the former president needed to go out of the country he could file an application and the court would pass an appropriate order.
Later, while talking to the media, tears welled up in the eyes of advocate Ahmed Raza Kasuri as he described the health of Musharraf’s ailing mother.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 24th, 2013.