Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: FILE
The three-judge bench of the special court constituted for General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial hinted on Tuesday that more names can be added to the list of those responsible for issuing the November 3, 2007 emergency order.
Amidst protest and agitation from Musharraf’s legal team, including leading counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada, the public prosecutor in the case Akram Sheikh concluded his arguments and rejected all objections related to the constitution of the special court.
Pirzada lost his cool during Tuesday’s proceedings and raised his voice while addressing Sheikh on several occasions.
Sheikh told the bench that Musharraf was put on trial because evidence was available thus far against him only.
The interior ministry, while discharging its function on behalf of the federal government, has filed a complaint in light of the investigation against Musharraf. The evidence is also annexed along with the complaint, he added. The prosecution will cross-examine the accused during the trial; if any other official or person is involved in the November 3 episode then he also be put on trial, Sheikh said.
In response to a query of the bench, Sheikh said that Musharraf’s legal team’s concern that only Musharraf has been singled out is genuine, because there are papers signed by the accused which show that he was the person who imposed emergency on November 3. He said that to address this concern, Musharraf should appear before the court and reveal the names of accomplices so the prosecution can add them to the list.
To this, Justice Faisal Arab, the leading judge of the bench, said, “We know that the special court can add more names during the trial of the case.”
A member from the prosecution team told The Express Tribune that no top official of the army has confessed involvement in the imposition of the November 3, 2007 emergency rule. The Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) officials grilled close aides to Musharraf but they denied their role in the November 3 episode and unanimously held Musharraf responsible for the unconstitutional steps.
During the proceedings, Justice Faisal Arab asked whether the secretary interior has extraordinary powers that enable him to file a complaint without consent from the federal government. Sheikh replied that since the interior minister is the federal government in this case, the secretary discharged his duty as per law. Justice Arab said that the secretary can involve anyone under such powers.
Justice Tahira Safdar asked the prosecution to address the defence team’s objections to the cabinet not being taken on board regarding the bench’s constitution.
Sheikh said that as per rules of business, the secretary is the administrative head of a division or ministry and that the government did not nominate judges and adopted a more transparent procedure because the accused is also enjoying the right of a fair trial under Articles 10A, 9, 12, 4 and 25 of the constitution.
Had the federal government appointed the judges, the objection of bias would be genuine perhaps, Sheikh said. He also pointed out a technical problem: there are five high courts and only three judges are required for a special court, therefore making it necessary to take on board the judiciary in the process.
On the request of Anwar Mansoor, who came to court late, the special court adjourned its hearing till Thursday.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2014.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714129906-0/Clint-Eastwood-(1)1714129906-0-270x192.webp)
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
One can only laugh and shake head on the prosecution's argument that the case is filed only on Musharraf because no one else has admitted responsibility. So the FIA only prosecutes those who admit responsibility to an alleged crime, otherwise the Federal "Investigation" Agency is powerless and does not know how to "investigate" and find the accused? Moreover at least 3 politicians have come forward and already admitted that they were a part of the emergency proclamation decision, not to speak of the fact that Musharraf's proclamation speech itself states all those who were consulted. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the incompetency of the prosecutor and the court to not question it.
It means that the investigation carried out by the government agency is faulty and malafide and so is the complaint of 'Treason''.How could only the COAS/President order and implement the,'Emergency', at Federal and in four Provinces,in the presence of elected goverments and National/ Provincial Assemblys which kept on functioning after the Proclamation.