Treason trial: Musharraf denied access to FIA records
Defence says proclamation of emergency order shows PM, all governors and military leadership were consulted.
Musharraf’s old legal team was not present in the court, however, through another press statement Musharraf clarified that he did not disassociate from any member of his legal team. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The public prosecutor in the high treason trial on Tuesday refused to give former military ruler Pervez Musharraf access to the official data that shows details of the abettors in the 2007 proclamation of emergency.
Musharraf’s counsel, Dr Farogh Naseem, requested on the very first hearing after the indictment of the former president that the three-judge special court grant disclosure and supply of copies of inquiries as well as the investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
Naseem stated that the Hussain Asghar-led inquiry report is the foundational basis of the complaint itself. Prosecutor Akram Sheikh said that the law does not require such a demand so it is not appropriate to give access of such official records to the accused who abrogated the Constitution.
Before Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, in a packed courtroom within the building of the Federal Shariat Court, Farogh Naseem made his plea. He said that on March 7, the court had clearly held that as and when evidence is brought on record that the accused was aided, abetted and collaborated by others, the court would decide the issue in that regard.
In order to bring such evidence on record, the first step was to require the prosecution to file the FIA’s report, which had clearly contained a dissenting note by one Hussain Asghar that Musharraf alone should not be sent to trial and that his aiders and abettors should also be made co-accused.
It was also contended by Dr Naseem that in the proclamation of emergency on November 3, 2007 the prime minister, all governors and members of the military leadership were disclosed to be the consultees. Musharraf through a press release also clarified on Tuesday that his counsel Ibrahim Satti’s statement was not his stance that promulgation of the emergency was his exclusive decision.
Musharraf’s old legal team was not present in the court, however, through another press statement Musharraf clarified that he did not disassociate from any member of his legal team.
Naseem told the court that the proclamation of emergency was a public document duly published in law reports.
Therefore, the accused had sufficiently discharged the tactical or prima facie burden of proof and the ultimate or legal burden to disprove the same now rested upon the prosecution.
“In other words, in terms of the mandate of the court order on March 7, sufficient material was now on record for the court to pass orders implicating the co-accused,” he added.
Naseem argued that in terms of international jurisprudence there could be no selective prosecution of Musharraf. Even Article 12(2) of the constitution requires a trial under Article 6 with effect from March 23, 1956. Justice Faisal Arab observed that it was beyond the mandate of the special court. Our jurisdiction is limited to the extent of this complaint against Musharraf, he said.
At the outset of the proceedings, Farogh Naseem pointed out that orders on an application pertaining to the disqualification of Akram Shaikh as the prosecutor had been reserved on March 26 and the court on March 27 observed that before the evidence was to be recorded, the application in respect of the prosecutor would be decided. On this the court observed that such order shall be announced on Friday, April 18. The court has adjourned the hearing till Wednesday (today).
Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th, 2014.
The public prosecutor in the high treason trial on Tuesday refused to give former military ruler Pervez Musharraf access to the official data that shows details of the abettors in the 2007 proclamation of emergency.
Musharraf’s counsel, Dr Farogh Naseem, requested on the very first hearing after the indictment of the former president that the three-judge special court grant disclosure and supply of copies of inquiries as well as the investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
Naseem stated that the Hussain Asghar-led inquiry report is the foundational basis of the complaint itself. Prosecutor Akram Sheikh said that the law does not require such a demand so it is not appropriate to give access of such official records to the accused who abrogated the Constitution.
Before Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, in a packed courtroom within the building of the Federal Shariat Court, Farogh Naseem made his plea. He said that on March 7, the court had clearly held that as and when evidence is brought on record that the accused was aided, abetted and collaborated by others, the court would decide the issue in that regard.
In order to bring such evidence on record, the first step was to require the prosecution to file the FIA’s report, which had clearly contained a dissenting note by one Hussain Asghar that Musharraf alone should not be sent to trial and that his aiders and abettors should also be made co-accused.
It was also contended by Dr Naseem that in the proclamation of emergency on November 3, 2007 the prime minister, all governors and members of the military leadership were disclosed to be the consultees. Musharraf through a press release also clarified on Tuesday that his counsel Ibrahim Satti’s statement was not his stance that promulgation of the emergency was his exclusive decision.
Musharraf’s old legal team was not present in the court, however, through another press statement Musharraf clarified that he did not disassociate from any member of his legal team.
Naseem told the court that the proclamation of emergency was a public document duly published in law reports.
Therefore, the accused had sufficiently discharged the tactical or prima facie burden of proof and the ultimate or legal burden to disprove the same now rested upon the prosecution.
“In other words, in terms of the mandate of the court order on March 7, sufficient material was now on record for the court to pass orders implicating the co-accused,” he added.
Naseem argued that in terms of international jurisprudence there could be no selective prosecution of Musharraf. Even Article 12(2) of the constitution requires a trial under Article 6 with effect from March 23, 1956. Justice Faisal Arab observed that it was beyond the mandate of the special court. Our jurisdiction is limited to the extent of this complaint against Musharraf, he said.
At the outset of the proceedings, Farogh Naseem pointed out that orders on an application pertaining to the disqualification of Akram Shaikh as the prosecutor had been reserved on March 26 and the court on March 27 observed that before the evidence was to be recorded, the application in respect of the prosecutor would be decided. On this the court observed that such order shall be announced on Friday, April 18. The court has adjourned the hearing till Wednesday (today).
Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th, 2014.