Military intervention was justified: Musharraf’s counsel
Kasuri says prime minister, cabinet and governors were on board.
Former president Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
In an effort to defend their beleaguered client, former president Pervez Musharraf’s legal counsel on Monday argued that when faced with a threat to national security, military intervention was justified in a developing country.
Qamar Afzal, representing the former president, told a three-member bench of the apex court that the army is a recognised power in developing countries and cannot be stopped by Article 6 when saving the country is its main priority.
Afzal made his concluding arguments before the bench led by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, which is hearing identical petitions seeking Musharraf’s trial for high treason.
Replying to the counsel’s comments, the apex court judges reiterated that the role of the army was well defined in the constitution and servicemen were required to remain with their domain instead of encroaching on civilian power.
Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Ahmed Raza Kasuri highlighted that a nation’s army is its strength. Taking the plea of separating of powers, Kasuri argued that the judiciary’s role is to deliver justice and not question the integrity of the country’s institutions.
Referring to earlier apex court judgments in the Asma Jillani, Maulvi Tameezudin and Zafar Ali Shah cases, Kasuri alleged that even the court had delivered different verdicts when hearing cases on the same subjects. Meanwhile, the bench observed that a petitioner’s counsel had asked the court to direct the treason trial of the former military dictator, arguing that Musharraf could then defend his actions under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which provided exceptions.
Voicing his objections, Kasuri said that no petitioner had locus standi against his client. Citing the July 2009 court verdicts, he further emphasised that the Supreme Court had not issued any directions against his client knowing fully that it was the federation’s prerogative to launch a complaint in the treason matter.
Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan observed that the court could issue directives to the federation if a government employee failed to discharge given duties saying it did not affect the merit of the case. Justice Khawaja in his comments observed that the petitioners in the case had argued that Musharraf’s decision had violated the constitution, thus suspending fundamental rights of citizens.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 7th, 2013.
In an effort to defend their beleaguered client, former president Pervez Musharraf’s legal counsel on Monday argued that when faced with a threat to national security, military intervention was justified in a developing country.
Qamar Afzal, representing the former president, told a three-member bench of the apex court that the army is a recognised power in developing countries and cannot be stopped by Article 6 when saving the country is its main priority.
Afzal made his concluding arguments before the bench led by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, which is hearing identical petitions seeking Musharraf’s trial for high treason.
Replying to the counsel’s comments, the apex court judges reiterated that the role of the army was well defined in the constitution and servicemen were required to remain with their domain instead of encroaching on civilian power.
Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Ahmed Raza Kasuri highlighted that a nation’s army is its strength. Taking the plea of separating of powers, Kasuri argued that the judiciary’s role is to deliver justice and not question the integrity of the country’s institutions.
Referring to earlier apex court judgments in the Asma Jillani, Maulvi Tameezudin and Zafar Ali Shah cases, Kasuri alleged that even the court had delivered different verdicts when hearing cases on the same subjects. Meanwhile, the bench observed that a petitioner’s counsel had asked the court to direct the treason trial of the former military dictator, arguing that Musharraf could then defend his actions under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which provided exceptions.
Voicing his objections, Kasuri said that no petitioner had locus standi against his client. Citing the July 2009 court verdicts, he further emphasised that the Supreme Court had not issued any directions against his client knowing fully that it was the federation’s prerogative to launch a complaint in the treason matter.
Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan observed that the court could issue directives to the federation if a government employee failed to discharge given duties saying it did not affect the merit of the case. Justice Khawaja in his comments observed that the petitioners in the case had argued that Musharraf’s decision had violated the constitution, thus suspending fundamental rights of citizens.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 7th, 2013.