30 days of justice: One month into trial, Musharraf evades arrest
Medical report from AFIC determining Musharraf’s health status to be submitted today.
Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Even as General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s treason trial hearing stretched into its second month, the former military ruler was no closer to an appearance before the special court on Thursday.
The three-judge bench had first asked him to appear before the court on December 24.
For this reason, Musharraf has not been indicted, with the charge sheet asking the accused to explain his involvement in the November 3, 2007 emergency rule.
A medical board of senior doctors from the Armed Forces of Institute of Cardiology (AFIC) will present its report about Musharraf’s health condition today. After examining the report, the court will decide about Musharraf’s exemption from appearance, arrest warrants or symbolic custody.
A member of Musharraf’s legal team told The Express Tribune that it goes to the defence team’s credit that the court and ‘able’ prosecutors have been kept busy with “irrelevant issues for the entire month and that the strategy of the defence is still unchanged so it can drag the special court’s proceedings and restrict it from initiating the trial.
“We are not bound to say anything on January 24,” said Faisal Chaudhry regarding Musharraf’s appearance. “We will continue to argue the case as usual.”
On Thursday, Anwar Mansoor could not submit written copies of his arguments in the correct order and sought more time. After seeking exemption for the accused, Musharraf’s legal team on Thursday also requested the court to not hold five days of hearings in the week and suggested proceedings should be held on three days instead. “We have many other professional commitments so at least Monday and Friday should be exempted from the hearing,” he said. The court noted down his request.
During the hearing, the academic debate on the definition of ‘the federal government’ dominated the proceedings. Mansoor told the bench that the prosecutor had confessed that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the federal cabinet were not involved in the decision making procedure regarding the initiation of trial against Musharraf, thus the notification of the special court under article 90 is illegal and invalid.
Justice Arab asked him whether the entire machinery of the state is not part of the federal government. Mansoor said the prime minister cannot delegate his decision-making powers to the interior secretary except those related to executive decisions.
Dr Tariq Hassan, one of the prosecutors, said that the words ‘federal government’ had been used more than 400 times in the constitution and that it is not possible that every issue be brought before the prime minister and federal cabinet for approval.
He said that the constitution describes the federal government but it is wrong to accept the notion that only the prime minister and cabinet constitute the government. He referred article 99 of the constitution in support of his argument and cited relevant rules of business to run the state affairs. He said that in many land-related disputes, the federal government is made a party but that it does not mean the property belongs to the prime minister or the federal cabinet.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 24th, 2014.
Even as General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s treason trial hearing stretched into its second month, the former military ruler was no closer to an appearance before the special court on Thursday.
The three-judge bench had first asked him to appear before the court on December 24.
For this reason, Musharraf has not been indicted, with the charge sheet asking the accused to explain his involvement in the November 3, 2007 emergency rule.
A medical board of senior doctors from the Armed Forces of Institute of Cardiology (AFIC) will present its report about Musharraf’s health condition today. After examining the report, the court will decide about Musharraf’s exemption from appearance, arrest warrants or symbolic custody.
A member of Musharraf’s legal team told The Express Tribune that it goes to the defence team’s credit that the court and ‘able’ prosecutors have been kept busy with “irrelevant issues for the entire month and that the strategy of the defence is still unchanged so it can drag the special court’s proceedings and restrict it from initiating the trial.
“We are not bound to say anything on January 24,” said Faisal Chaudhry regarding Musharraf’s appearance. “We will continue to argue the case as usual.”
On Thursday, Anwar Mansoor could not submit written copies of his arguments in the correct order and sought more time. After seeking exemption for the accused, Musharraf’s legal team on Thursday also requested the court to not hold five days of hearings in the week and suggested proceedings should be held on three days instead. “We have many other professional commitments so at least Monday and Friday should be exempted from the hearing,” he said. The court noted down his request.
During the hearing, the academic debate on the definition of ‘the federal government’ dominated the proceedings. Mansoor told the bench that the prosecutor had confessed that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the federal cabinet were not involved in the decision making procedure regarding the initiation of trial against Musharraf, thus the notification of the special court under article 90 is illegal and invalid.
Justice Arab asked him whether the entire machinery of the state is not part of the federal government. Mansoor said the prime minister cannot delegate his decision-making powers to the interior secretary except those related to executive decisions.
Dr Tariq Hassan, one of the prosecutors, said that the words ‘federal government’ had been used more than 400 times in the constitution and that it is not possible that every issue be brought before the prime minister and federal cabinet for approval.
He said that the constitution describes the federal government but it is wrong to accept the notion that only the prime minister and cabinet constitute the government. He referred article 99 of the constitution in support of his argument and cited relevant rules of business to run the state affairs. He said that in many land-related disputes, the federal government is made a party but that it does not mean the property belongs to the prime minister or the federal cabinet.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 24th, 2014.