Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: FILE
The federal government on Monday raised objections over the Sindh High Court’s authority to accept a petition regarding the removal of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL).
“It is submitted that this court [SHC] lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the instant petition filed by the petitioner and it is liable to be dismissed,” read the government’s reply submitted in SHC by the interior ministry’s section officer Aamir Sohail Langeraw.
A division bench of the SHC will resume the hearing of Musharraf’s petition, seeking instructions over the removal of his name from the ECL tomorrow (Wednesday).
In response to the high court’s notice, the government strongly opposed allowing Musharraf to leave the country on any ground and stated that he is accused in other high profile cases and may therefore be awarded capital punishment.
The government also contended that allowing Musharraf to go abroad for treatment would be a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution as adequate medical facilities are available in Pakistan.
It also submitted that the petitioner has made several misstatements in the petition and also concealed important facts from the court. “The petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief under Article 199 of the Constitution “
The reply stated that Musharraf has an adequate alternative remedy before the competent authority (interior ministry) in the form of a review.
“The petitioner [Musharraf] is not facing ordinary criminal charges. He has been charged with high treason which is the most serious crime against the state/ the people of Pakistan. If the petitioner is allowed to leave the country, he would have a great incentive to avoid his trail, conviction and punishment. His conduct on record is of avoiding appearance before the special court,” read the reply.
It pointed out that the federal government had offered to fly Musharraf’s mother from the UAE but he is not sincere in his request. It said that there is a great likelihood that in the garb of this request, Musharraf would try to flee from Pakistan and frustrate the judicial process.
It also objected that the instant petition raises complex questions of the facts, which could not be decided without recording evidence, adding that it is settled law that in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, courts would not decide questions of fact.
The reply states that Musharraf’s name was included on the ECL first on April 5, 2013 by the federal government and that the Supreme Court on April 8, 2013, also directed the federal government to place his name on the ECL.
The petitioner has approached this court (SHC) after more than a year against the order dated April 5, 2013. The instant petition is therefore hit by the ‘doctrine of laches’ and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.
It is further objected that the authority of interpreting the top court’s April 8, 2013 and July 3, 2013 order is vested exclusively in the SC and no other court could take upon itself this function, which, if otherwise was undertaken, the same would clearly amount to violation of Article 189 of the Constitution and would also amount to contempt of the top court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 6th, 2014.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ