Abettors’ deny role in 2007 emergency

FIA report quotes attorney general Malik Qayyum as saying that Musharraf never discussed proclamation of emergency.

ISLAMABAD: The “aiders and abettors” allegedly connected to the unprecedented treason trial against Pervez Musharraf appear to have left him in the lurch.

The much-desired Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) report encircling the embattled retired general was made public on Wednesday, and revealed that none of the former ruler’s close aides took the responsibility of being consulted for the promulgation of emergency rule in 2007.

In statements recorded before the agency’s inquiry team, the suspected facilitators pointed fingers at each other, leaving the burden of proof for their former boss to carry.

Among these are Governor Sindh Dr Ishratul Ebad and then Governor of Punjab Lieutenant General Khalid Maqbool, who denied their role in assisting Musharraf impose emergency rule. Ebad, however, said that he once heard Musharraf talk about his desire to promulgate emergency rule.

Secretary to Musharraf, Secretary to ex-PM Shaukat Aziz and Secretary Cabinet also refused to acknowledge any meeting or consultation initiated by Musharraf for emergency rule.

The FIA report also quotes then attorney general Malik Qayyum as saying that Musharraf never discussed proclamation of emergency nor sought his advice.

“Qayyum also stated that it was widely known in power circles that Musharraf was getting advice on proclamation of emergency from Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advisor to Prime Minister on Law,” reads the enquiry report.

Pirzada, who has been appointed lead counsel by Musharraf in the high-profile treason case, told the FIA team that he was an honorary advisor to the then chief executive and asserted that he had no role in the proclamation of emergency.

“They [Musharraf] and his legal team have fallen into their own trap,” public prosecutor Akram Sheikh told The Express Tribune, adding that there is no dissenting note as was widely propagated.

Sheikh believes that evidence is available solely against Musharraf and that he will face the treason trial alone until he does not provide evidence against abettors.

“How can the trial be initiated against hundreds of people without any evidence?” he asked.

“We will request secretary interior to present evidence against Musharraf and then witnesses for testimonies,” he said.

In view of the special court’s order, the interior ministry has submitted the inquiry report, where it is recommended that the court may take into account the role of various facilitators in the unconstitutional promulgation of emergency on November 3, 2007.

“The inquiry team made a number of attempts to obtain summary… concerning promulgation of emergency issued by Musharraf. However, no such document or relevant record was provided from [the GHQ],” the report says.

It details that the team recorded statements of more than 25 important officials.

“He apparently is unable to produce any defence in spite of being provided an ample opportunity to do so,” it states. The FIA team has recommended the government to lodge a formal complaint against Musharraf under the high treason Punishment Act 1973.

“The team has not found any mitigating circumstances that could minimise the culpability of Musharraf,” the report concludes.

A member of Musharraf’s legal team said that after the FIA’s revealing recommendation, the trial will run into months. He also said that statements recorded under section 161 have no importance without the court’s approval.

Musharraf’s legal team strongly objected to the government’s efforts to conceal this recommendation and single him out in the treason trial.

Musharraf’s lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain said that the government’s mala fide intent is evident from the fact that the prosecution team did not attach the evidence along with the complaint against their client. He alleged that the government is giving a clean chit to the co-accused in contradiction of the FIA report.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 15^th, 2014.