Musharraf's counsel said SC's Jul 31, 2009 verdict declared it unconstitutional, but not a breach of the Constitution. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
The 14-member large SC bench headed by the Chief Justice heard the review petition filed by former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf against the SC verdict. The court maintained the sacking of senior court judges and other actions taken by Musharraf under the banner of an 'emergency' rule as null and void.
During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel Ibrahim Satti apprised the court that Gen (retd) Musharraf was given the right to make amendments in the Constitution, following which, changes were made in more than 100 articles of the Constitution.
Satti maintained Musharraf had issued a new oath for judges following the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) of 2000, and former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was among the judges who took their oath under the PCO.
Musharraf's counsel challenged that while the July 31 verdict had declared the proclamation of emergency as unconstitutional, it did not state that the step was equal to breaching the Constitution.
He said a reference was also filed against the ex-chief justice on March 9, 2007 while the SC ordered to restore Iftikhar Chaudhry on July 20, 2007.
After the restoration of former CJ, the referring authority did not file a review petition, he added.
Satti argued that the original draft of the PCO was not made apart of the court's order.
On this, Chief Justice Jillani inquired about the content of the original draft. Satti replied that emergency was imposed on November 3, 2007 after consulting the armed forces and Chief of the Army Staff.
Governors, corps commanders and Chief of the Army Staff were on board regarding the decision, he added.
The counsel said the emergency was proclaimed on November 3, 2007 due to a situation similar to that on October 12, 1998.
However, all institutions except the judiciary were functioning as per routine on November 3.
The court then asked "whether the emergency was imposed for the judiciary only," to which Musharraf's counsel replied: "Unfortunately that is true."
The lawyer said his client had not been given the right to present his stance in the court.
"Was he unaware of the case?" asked Justice Jawwad. "He knew but was not in a position to appear before the court," said the counsel.
Ibrahim Satti told the court that former prime minister Shaukat Aziz had apprised Pervez Musharraf through a letter that the country was going through a constitutional crisis.
Satti said when the case was initiated, Musharraf was not a party to the case. The Attorney General gave a statement on behalf of the Federation that the government did not support the November 3, 2007 steps.
The Chief Justice remarked that the parliament did not endorse the steps taken on November 3, 2007. Ibrahim Satti told the court that Pervez Musharraf had received the notice for appearance on April 22, 2009 but he was in London due to the threats he had received from Taliban.
The court adjourned the hearing for Wednesday and directed Ibrahim Satti to complete his arguments till 11:30 am.
COMMENTS (26)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732967296-0/Untitled-design-(15)1732967296-0-270x192.webp "zainab raza refutes reported family ties with musharraf")
1732961640-0/BeFunk_§_]__§-(9)1732961640-0.jpg "imran khan s lawyers petition against meeting restrictions by investigation officer")
1732954958-0/Untitled-design-(14)1732954958-0-270x192.webp "pm shehbaz hails lifting of pia flight ban by european authorities")
1732951088-0/Untitled-design-(11)1732951088-0-270x192.webp "mashal yousafzai dismissed as special assistant to k p cm")
1732966095-0/Express-Tribune-(5)1732966095-0-270x192.webp "dumper truck kills college professor and wife in karachi accident")
@Truth Told: Prosperous is not a matter of definition. It means growth in GDP, people's incomes, purchasing power, and lowering of poverty and unemployment. It means better healthcare available to a larger population, better basic and higher education for the masses. All these were much better in Musharraf's time, and those are independently verifiable facts. Like many I wish these were better in democratic government's time but sadly the politicians are too busy looting the country than paying attention to its betterment. Musharraf has been gone for almost 6 years now and look where we are, and compare that to 6 years after he took over. You can make all the excuses for the politicians how democracy disruption is the cause of their failure, but if a military man with no training in running the country can perform within 2 years then surely these politicians can in 6 years. They haven't.
@ Waseem Going by your logic British Raj was better for Pakistan because there was no inflation during British Raj. Dude, you need to see a Doctor of AFIC!
ET: May I kindly exercise my right to reply to someone who has written to me @Pakistani Patriot: "Prosperous" that is a matter of definition. Well, I meant that we were better off than under Musharraf's rule. The economy was moving in the right direction. For example, in 1992 foreign trade was being increasingly substituted to meet the needs of foreign aid. If you want to strictly define "prosperous" then Pakistan has never been "prosperous," period. Please try to concentrate on the main idea. Anyway, no one should support usurpation of power or dictatorship. Even if and when ANY dictatorial rules, such as, that of Ayub Khan, could be better in terms of economic performance, the fact remains that they cause national divisiveness and fissures which are hard to remedy, and these aftermaths make economic management and development more difficult and as such democratic interregnum, such as, between the Zia era and that of Musharraf’s rule are littered with intractable problems, which dictatorships cause.
@Truth Told: After this comment "The period between 1988-1999 was more prosperous", your name should be anything but truth. By 1999 Pakistan was a failed state by all accounts, with less than $400 million foreign reserves, corruption among all time high, sectarian violence like it is today, money fleeing Pakistan, stock market at record lows, IMF loan repayments taking up majority of revenue collection etc. etc. Not to speak of the clash with the military and the supreme court. No truthful person has called that period "prosperous".
What should be the punishment for Musharraf for his sins regarding changing the constitution? Any body to suggest?
@Waseem: If you think instability, terrorism and illegal rule is so great, then I can understand why you support Musharraf's decade of illegal rule. All of the nation's current problems are due to Musharraf. Musharraf is nothing more than an embarrassment on the nation's history. Only rule of law and democracy can move a nation forward.
@Jibran: exactly,that is the point why no body is asking for trial of all PCOs judges and those member of Parlimianterians for treason. They all willfully endorsed musharraf's act. What about al lthose ministers,president and prime minister who took oath of office from him after 3rd November
Dear Musharraf Plz be a real commando, don't try to escape.
As the saying goes ' don't step into the kitchen if you can't take the heat '. One feels a little sorry for Musharraf as his now quite famous streak for manking bad decissions still continues.
Yes, that was understood as Judges were biased and are still biased. Army has to intervene again otherwise, Pakistan ka khuda hafiz. May Allah help Musharraf! Ameen
Musharraf's time was a time of prosperity. Thats matters to people of Pakistan, rest is all dirty politics, an anti-common-Pakistani agenda.
Can a parliament make an amendment to endorse a military takeover? Isn't it in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution? Can SC give a dictator the right to amend constitution? Three unconventional acts were committed following the 1999 coup. First by the generals, then by the judges, and finally by the politicians.
SC is demotivating Pak Army by such acts.
Musharraf can run, even hide, but he cannot escape.
Judicial activism continues unashamedly Pakistan ka Khuda hafiz
This council of the accused is following the line of defence taken by Karadzic and Mladic in the Internation al criminal court at Hague? It is very strange though that the accused General is not calling for those in the military as witnesses who supported his adventures. Too weak of the council to look for the scapeoats in the person of his politician minister..
Rex Minor
It is very clear he violated constitution.
What else can u expect from Chaudhry Iftikhar right hand man ? Free Judiciary lol Long alive Musharraf