Musharraf's trial: Altaf seeks answers to his 7 points from legal, constitutional experts

MQM chief asks why those who aided, collaborated and validated the former president's actions are not being tried.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain reiterated on Thursday that former President Pervez Musharraf alone should not be held responsible or tried for imposing emergency, and presented his seven points on the matter.

In a statement released by his party early on Thursday morning, Altaf said that those demanding punishment for Musharraf under Article six of the Constitution should either bring sound arguments in response to his points, or they should withdraw their demands.

The MQM chief asked constitutional, legal, defence and political experts to explain as to why only Gen Musharraf has been arrested and being held responsible for the imposition of emergency, while those who aided, collaborated and validated the former president’s action were allowed to remain free instead of facing cases in the court?

Seven points

1. The army takes martial law on October 12, 1999 and dismisses a democratically elected government.

The time when the generals of Pakistan Army and other officers started their action for dismissing the democratically-elected government, General Pervez Musharraf was on-board a plane and returning to country from a foreign visit.

2. A meeting of the generals was held after Gen Musharraf landed in which it was decided to hold the Constitution in abeyance.

A Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) was promulgated and the judges of the Supreme Court were asked to take a fresh oath under the PCO.

The then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Mamoon Qazi, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Khalilur Rehman, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed and Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam refused to take oath under the PCO.

3. The judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts that took the oath, under the PCO included Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, Justice Iftakhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Bashir Jahangiri, Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed, Justice Abdur Rehman and Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Arif.

4. When the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif dismissed the Chief of Army Staff Gen Musharraf on October 12, 1999, by exercising his discretionary powers and issued a written notification, promoted and decorated the head of the ISI Lt Gen Ziauddin to the office of the Chief of Army Staff, the generals of the GHQ and the corps commanders refused to follow the orders.

On October 12, 1999, Gen Musharraf and other generals deposed the government in clear violation of the Constitution, suspended the Constitution of Pakistan, arrested the prime minister, they arrested Gen Ziauddin as well.

5. Will the constitutional and legal experts and political and defence analysts like to answer under which article of the Constitution did the judges of the Supreme Court, who took oath under the PCO of Gen Musharraf, validate and legitimise the army action of October 12, 1999?

Under which constitution was the military government of Gen Musharraf allowed to continue to work for three years?

Under which constitution was the military government allowed to amend the Constitution?

6. Why is it that some politicians and legal and constitutional experts were declaring the imposition of emergency of November 3, 2007, as unconstitutional and not the deposition of the elected government and holding of the Constitution in abeyance on the October 12, 1999?

How can they validate and legitimise the military action of the October 12, 1999?

7. General Ayub Khan, General Yahya Khan and General Ziaul Haque had also imposed martial law in the country in utter violation of the constitutions but not a single general was held in captivity even for a second let alone a full hour.

It is also pertinent to point out that when Gen Ziaul Haque had imposed the martial law, he had not only dismissed elected governments and assemblies but also arrested and hanged the elected prime minister. As against this, Gen Musharraf not only pardoned prime minister Sharif, although he was convicted by a court, but also allowed Sharif and his entire family to proceed to Saudi Arabia with his servants, attendants, and suitcases.