Contradictory arguments: SC asks Musharraf to clarify his position in writing
Demands clarification on finding his two advocates at variance .
Former president Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing petitions seeking treason trial of Pervez Musharraf directed the ex-military ruler on Wednesday to submit his instructions in writing after his two lawyers put forth conflicting arguments.
The bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, got surprised after they found the two lawyers – Ahmed Raza Kasuri and Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti – at variance while representing Musharraf and contesting one and the same case.
“We, therefore, feel it appropriate, not to cause any prejudice to Pervez Musharraf, (and order him) to state in writing exactly what his instructions are and to identify who could be treated as his leading counsel,” observed Justice Khawaja as he dictated the order.
The bench, also comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, however, did not give any weight to the request of advocate Sheikh Ahsanud Din, one of the petitioners against Musharraf that the ex-president should be summoned in the court and asked to present his arguments in person.
The bench when resumed hearing on Wednesday was surprised at the degree of differences between the two lawyers, arguing for Musharraf.
Advocate Satti, adding to his earlier arguments, contended that he got instructions from Musharraf at 6pm on Tuesday and said the SC could not direct for the trial of his client or any other person under article 6 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, Advocate Kasuri had argued that if the trial was initiated all the abettors and conspirators who helped Musharraf in proclaiming November 3, 2007 emergency should be charged with high treason and tried along with him.
When the bench drew their attention towards the difference of arguments presented by the two lawyers, Kasuri said he was the leading lawyer for Musharraf and got the latest instructions from the ex-president at 11pm on Tuesday.
The confused bench started dictating the order despite the lawyers said they had nothing different in their arguments and that every one of the three lawyers of Musharraf appeared for a different petition.
The bench however observed that it was necessary to clarify the arguments before reaching any conclusion in the case to save Musharraf from any possible prejudice.
The bench before deferring the next hearing till Thursday noted that an official of the SC would take the order to Musahrraf, who during the course of the day (Wednesday) would submit his written instructions with the court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 9th, 2013.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing petitions seeking treason trial of Pervez Musharraf directed the ex-military ruler on Wednesday to submit his instructions in writing after his two lawyers put forth conflicting arguments.
The bench, headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, got surprised after they found the two lawyers – Ahmed Raza Kasuri and Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti – at variance while representing Musharraf and contesting one and the same case.
“We, therefore, feel it appropriate, not to cause any prejudice to Pervez Musharraf, (and order him) to state in writing exactly what his instructions are and to identify who could be treated as his leading counsel,” observed Justice Khawaja as he dictated the order.
The bench, also comprising Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, however, did not give any weight to the request of advocate Sheikh Ahsanud Din, one of the petitioners against Musharraf that the ex-president should be summoned in the court and asked to present his arguments in person.
The bench when resumed hearing on Wednesday was surprised at the degree of differences between the two lawyers, arguing for Musharraf.
Advocate Satti, adding to his earlier arguments, contended that he got instructions from Musharraf at 6pm on Tuesday and said the SC could not direct for the trial of his client or any other person under article 6 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, Advocate Kasuri had argued that if the trial was initiated all the abettors and conspirators who helped Musharraf in proclaiming November 3, 2007 emergency should be charged with high treason and tried along with him.
When the bench drew their attention towards the difference of arguments presented by the two lawyers, Kasuri said he was the leading lawyer for Musharraf and got the latest instructions from the ex-president at 11pm on Tuesday.
The confused bench started dictating the order despite the lawyers said they had nothing different in their arguments and that every one of the three lawyers of Musharraf appeared for a different petition.
The bench however observed that it was necessary to clarify the arguments before reaching any conclusion in the case to save Musharraf from any possible prejudice.
The bench before deferring the next hearing till Thursday noted that an official of the SC would take the order to Musahrraf, who during the course of the day (Wednesday) would submit his written instructions with the court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 9th, 2013.