Musharraf’s petition rejected by top court
It is learnt that a split has emerged within the legal team of Musharraf for not availing the relief offered by SC.
Former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
With one down and one to go, the former army chief’s legal battles do not appear to be an easy fight.
After just over a month of proceedings, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s review petition against its July 31, 2009 judgment which had declared the November 3, 2007 emergency and Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) unconstitutional.
Dismissing Musharraf’s review petition, a 14-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, said that the reasons of the short order would be recorded later as the court finds that the review petition filed by Musharraf is time-barred and the precedents extinguishable.
The court, however, said that instead of considering the issue of the plea being time-barred, the bench heard the case on merit, adding however, that the questions raised in the review petition neither fall within the jurisdiction of review nor are tenable on merit to warrant interference of the court.
It is learnt that a split has emerged within the legal team of Musharraf for not availing the relief that was offered by the apex court on the first day of hearing.
One senior member of Musharraf’s legal team told The Express Tribune that the review petition was not properly argued, which is big setback for their client. He also said that the defence should have accepted the court’s offer to proceed on its own merit in the high treason case without considering the apex court’s judgments related to his client, as it could have been a good defence in the high treason case. The defence, however, failed to avail the offer as Ibrahim Satti requested that the bench declare the whole judgment as void.
Another member Chaudhry Faisal Hussain maintained that the chief justice made a valid proposal and that the offer should have been considered.
Regarding the dismissal of the review petition, he said that since the detailed judgment has not been issued, it is difficult to comment on the reasoning of this short order.
“The Supreme Court has preferred to stick with its conservative views, instead of adopting the modern approach it adopted in Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification case,” he added.
Simultaneously, the rejection of Musharraf’s review petition may also dampen the hope of superior bar associations as well as over aggrieved 100 judges, who were also considering challenging this judgment with regard to their removal.
“I think it is good that our petition was not fixed along with Musharraf’s review petition,” Lahore Court Bar Association’s counsel Ali Zafar said. “We are sure that the SC will take up our petition separately and will give us proper relief”, he added.
Renowned lawyer Tariq Mahmood, however, said that after the dismissal of Musharraf’s review petition, the way has been blocked for others, who are hoping to challenge the July 31, 2009 judgment. He appreciated the conduct of Justice Jillani for giving three days’ time to Musharraf’s lawyers in the review petition, but said the case could not be argued properly.
During the hearing, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked the petitioner’s lawyer Ibrahim Satti whether his client would tender an apology regarding his act of declaring emergency and the PCO. The counsel, however, replied that Musharraf would never do so.
Musharraf’s leading lawyer Sharifuddin Pirzada argued about the Quaid-e-Azam’s views regarding the Supreme Court but the bench observed that they have no relevancy with this case.
He submitted that the deviation of the constitution had been condoned several times in the past, and should therefore, be ignored again.
Upon this, the court asked whether he wanted that the law, which was laid down in the Zafar Ali Shah case, be declared as valid and allowed the deviation of the constitution in the future.
After the conclusion of Pirzada’s arguments, Satti came to the rostrum and submitted to the court that his client be given justice as he is “totally in a cage”. Upon this, justice Nasirul Mulk asked, “I thought he was in hospital but now you are telling that he is in a cage.” The chief justice again asked him whether he would be satisfied if the court would reproduce the observations made by the three-member bench in the case regarding his client last year.
However, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that the review petition can either be accepted or rejected, and that there is no in-between.
After the court’s break, the bench reassembled and dismissed the review petition straightaway without passing observations.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 31st, 2014.
With one down and one to go, the former army chief’s legal battles do not appear to be an easy fight.
After just over a month of proceedings, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s review petition against its July 31, 2009 judgment which had declared the November 3, 2007 emergency and Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) unconstitutional.
Dismissing Musharraf’s review petition, a 14-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, said that the reasons of the short order would be recorded later as the court finds that the review petition filed by Musharraf is time-barred and the precedents extinguishable.
The court, however, said that instead of considering the issue of the plea being time-barred, the bench heard the case on merit, adding however, that the questions raised in the review petition neither fall within the jurisdiction of review nor are tenable on merit to warrant interference of the court.
It is learnt that a split has emerged within the legal team of Musharraf for not availing the relief that was offered by the apex court on the first day of hearing.
One senior member of Musharraf’s legal team told The Express Tribune that the review petition was not properly argued, which is big setback for their client. He also said that the defence should have accepted the court’s offer to proceed on its own merit in the high treason case without considering the apex court’s judgments related to his client, as it could have been a good defence in the high treason case. The defence, however, failed to avail the offer as Ibrahim Satti requested that the bench declare the whole judgment as void.
Another member Chaudhry Faisal Hussain maintained that the chief justice made a valid proposal and that the offer should have been considered.
Regarding the dismissal of the review petition, he said that since the detailed judgment has not been issued, it is difficult to comment on the reasoning of this short order.
“The Supreme Court has preferred to stick with its conservative views, instead of adopting the modern approach it adopted in Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification case,” he added.
Simultaneously, the rejection of Musharraf’s review petition may also dampen the hope of superior bar associations as well as over aggrieved 100 judges, who were also considering challenging this judgment with regard to their removal.
“I think it is good that our petition was not fixed along with Musharraf’s review petition,” Lahore Court Bar Association’s counsel Ali Zafar said. “We are sure that the SC will take up our petition separately and will give us proper relief”, he added.
Renowned lawyer Tariq Mahmood, however, said that after the dismissal of Musharraf’s review petition, the way has been blocked for others, who are hoping to challenge the July 31, 2009 judgment. He appreciated the conduct of Justice Jillani for giving three days’ time to Musharraf’s lawyers in the review petition, but said the case could not be argued properly.
During the hearing, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar asked the petitioner’s lawyer Ibrahim Satti whether his client would tender an apology regarding his act of declaring emergency and the PCO. The counsel, however, replied that Musharraf would never do so.
Musharraf’s leading lawyer Sharifuddin Pirzada argued about the Quaid-e-Azam’s views regarding the Supreme Court but the bench observed that they have no relevancy with this case.
He submitted that the deviation of the constitution had been condoned several times in the past, and should therefore, be ignored again.
Upon this, the court asked whether he wanted that the law, which was laid down in the Zafar Ali Shah case, be declared as valid and allowed the deviation of the constitution in the future.
After the conclusion of Pirzada’s arguments, Satti came to the rostrum and submitted to the court that his client be given justice as he is “totally in a cage”. Upon this, justice Nasirul Mulk asked, “I thought he was in hospital but now you are telling that he is in a cage.” The chief justice again asked him whether he would be satisfied if the court would reproduce the observations made by the three-member bench in the case regarding his client last year.
However, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that the review petition can either be accepted or rejected, and that there is no in-between.
After the court’s break, the bench reassembled and dismissed the review petition straightaway without passing observations.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 31st, 2014.