Former president Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
In the 11-page long verdict, the court declared that the eight objections raised by Musharraf have no legal status.
The former dictator had raised objections over the authority of the special court, appointment of judges and prosecutor.
The court today reiterated that the treason case against Musharraf will only be heard in the special court and trial in military court is not possible until certain legal amendments are made.
Treason case
The special court comprises Sindh High Court’s Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Tahira Safdar of the Balochistan High Court and Justice Yawar Ali of the Lahore High Court.
Musharraf, when challenging the authority of the special court, stated that he was the army chief when he introduced the 2007 emergency and a military court alone could examine his actions.
The ex-military strongman was due to appear before the special court on December 24 to face treason charges under Article 6 for suspending, subverting and abrogating the Constitution, imposing an emergency in the country in November 2007 and detaining judges of the superior courts. But on the day of the hearing, Musharraf’s counsel told the bench he could not personally appear before the judges because of security threats.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731570357-0/elon-musk-(1)1731570357-0-165x106.webp "article")
-(1)1717678110-0/Kendrick-(1)-(1)1717678110-0-165x106.webp "article")
@NDC: Yea Sure,
@ Waseem
your pointless rhetoric and semantics will not change the facts. In jurisprudence rhetoric has no relevance. why was it felt necessary to add on these words if your reasoning has any merit ?
Nov 3 Proclamation held only a few clauses in ABEYANCE ,all else remained intact Judicial activism had paralysed the govt and as per the Constituition the PM Aziz had advised Musharraf in writing ,for taking that action which Musharraf had to follow as per procedure
Secondly, Iftikhar Chaudhry and his cronies had fabricated their judgement of NOV 3 as no official document is available anywhere except for a piece of paper and on which judge's signatures are incomplete as also Justice rana bhagwandas dated it as Nov 5 ( he was in India on Nov 3 )
No bench gave any ruling What a farce
@Waseem: Brother I provided facts alongwith law clauses and i dont believe in spreading only rhetoric.
@Waseem: That only one who did good for this country you want him to be penalized for doing something for this country by giving it economic prosperity. I assure you he isnt a criminal. You dont have the slightest of idea the sense which is developing that Musharraf is being victimized because he is not a Punjabi. Sadly this will hurt the national fabric. Brother the day abettors of 1977 coup because of whom my country suffers the most are punished ok then you can go on next feature otherwise this is sheer victimization and alarmingly people arent happy over it! The 2 Generals being talked about by this govt are both not Punjabis so if i were you i would ensure maintaining sheer national fabric and not go along a pathway of ethnic discrimination and victimization which i said earlier will create disharmony which my country doesnt need. it needs unity. I pray though Musharraf sahab to come in power somehow his avg 7% growth and keeping Dollar on 61, strict control on food inflation levels as minor example favored more of a common man. I support him for his honesty! Brother while on your other part President is authorized under Article 232. He did everything according to law.
O' brothers! Musharraf is only one man one person and I have personally nothing against him. We should let him be punished for his misdeeds, for our tomorrow, for our future generations… I am of the opinion that he may be let go once we decide him to be criminal, once we are done condemning, at least we learn to call a spade a spade as a nation it will be a milestone.
@Muneer: Parliamentary resolutions are not a law and if at all they have only political effects.
@imran ali @Muneer: Dogar over threw the verdict against Musharraf which had already been passed on 3rd Nov. which was again later over thrown ab-initio by the 14 judge full court bench. Dogar’s judgment would deemed to have not been announced and thus of no consequence in legal parlance.
@pk @Muneer @excalibur: It is not the letter it is the spirit that matters thus it is essentially a question involving substance over form. By denying part you deny the whole, by holding something that has to be in-force you subvert! - Albeit temporarily. Hence subvert means undermining the power and authority of (an established system or institution). Thus on 3rd Nov Musharraf effectively subverted the constitution by undermining the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was holding important proceedings that may would have effectively blocked his election in uniform.
@saad: it takes decades and sometimes centuries to transform societies so we should not lose hope and give-up just because it didn’t work few times it won’t work all the times. It is the beauty of democracy that if practiced repeatedly overtime it evolves and spews the best people to rule. Just believe. Democracy will lead to tolerance and choice one day – the only prerequisite is that we let it grow, let it continue, let it be in fashion …
@saad: it takes decades and sometimes centuries to transform societies so we should not lose hope and give-up just because it didn’t work few times it won’t work all the times. It is the beauty of democracy that if practiced repeatedly overtime it evolves and spews the best people to rule. Just believe. Democracy will lead to tolerance and choice one day – the only prerequisite is that we let it grow, let it continue, let it be in fashion …
@pk @Muneer @excalibur: It is not the letter it is the spirit that matters thus it is essentially a question involving substance over form. By denying part you deny the whole, by holding something that has to be in-force you subvert! - Albeit temporarily. Hence subvert means undermining the power and authority of (an established system or institution). Thus on 3rd Nov Musharraf effectively subverted the constitution by undermining the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was holding important proceedings that may would have effectively blocked his election in uniform.
@imran ali @Muneer: Dogar over threw the verdict against Musharraf which had already been passed on 3rd Nov. which was again later over thrown ab-initio by the 14 judge full court bench. Dogar’s judgment would deemed to have not been announced and thus of no consequence in legal parlance.
@Muneer: Parliamentary resolutions are not a law and if at all they have only political effects.
O' brothers! Musharraf is only one man one person and I have personally nothing against him. We should let him be punished for his misdeeds, for our tomorrow, for our future generations… I am of the opinion that he may be let go once we decide him to be criminal, once we are done condemning, at least we learn to call a spade a spade as a nation it will be a milestone.
Allah is omnipotent
If this blatant nexus between Nawaz Sahrif and the Judiciary goes unchecked and unchallenged it is not very ,long that D Square will become Tahrir Square
Zulm cannot sustain
Millions of pakistani love Musharraf''s dictatorship than the government of so called democratic looters. We salute Musharraf for all his actions including the removal of the political Chief Justice. The CJ and NS are just trying to get personal revenge but they will be looser ultimately.
@ Waseem
The words ABEYANCE and SUSPENSION are NOT the same as Subversion and Abrogation at all. Why then was the need felt or the reason for adding these word through the mala fide 18th Amandment ? Please dont be so naive
@waseem...constitutional order 3rd nov. was validated by chief justice Dogar....he retired normally and after his retirement Ch.Iftikar became C.J.
@Waseem: Brother dictionary quotes abeyance means a state of temporary disuse or suspension. Look if we start doing that then tomorrow we can pick and choose any law of our liking. You cant assume that for you subvert and abeyance means the same which isnt. I dont trust civilians brother now due to this democracy. Civilians woh bhi who are abettors of 1977 coup. Haa! big joke! Brother dont distort history and dont victimize a former chief of army frankly only because he isnt a punjabi. this will cause frictions amongst the federating units. Musharraf did more good to this country then bad. As an educated individual i dont have a job unable to find one in this democracy on sheer merit basis. Mark my words this will further alienate brother. You dont have the slightest of idea ask people on streets of Urban Sindh. I consider myself Pakistani but things i see sends chills down my back. Nov 3 act was validated on 7th or 8th Nov 2007 by parliament and the court of CJ Justice Dogar. Wohi baat hai aap kau jau acha lagay woh sahi aur jau na lagay mein na manu wali baat! Jinnahs Pakistan frankly died in December 1971.
@Waseem: what hope my friend, in a country where 80% can't read and write no democracy can work in Pakistan. Danday wali qaom hai ye. Musharraf is still better than all these stupid democratic leaders.
in reference to my previous text: typo error made -- word abeyance was added in 18th amendment by 2009/10. 2/3 yrs after 3rd Nov 2007 measure. As of date it wasnt a crime and was totally constitutional
The Judges are MORE OPEN than VEENA the GREAT but they conceive the reality with the nexus of media and the PRESS. The Justice in PAKISTAN is more discretionary than any other commodity but the MEDIA and the PRESS hide the truth.
Legal status haan?? Read article 10a on free trial, Army Act 1952 Clause 92. Musharrafs act is justified according to Emergency power Article 232 as power given by 17 Amendment to President. While word abeyance was added after 19 amendment in 2009/10. Holding it in abeyance wasn't an offense on 3rd November 2007. This trial is biased and is a farce. This judiciary has contradicted or gone against Article 10A of constitution by saying that apprehensions of Defense over prosecution and judges being biased have no legal status, come on this must be the best example of travesty of justice. Musharraf's team apprehensions have all the legal bearing to cry foul abt a farce. With this adventurism i see doomsday for this despotic democracy real soon!
The malicious wishes of some people will fail to harm our hero. Solute to Musharraf.