Treason case: Special court starts recording evidence
Petition filed in supreme court against removing Musharraf's name from ECL.
The special court expressed annoyance over the interior secretary’s failure in furnishing the original letter related, sent by then secretary to Prime Minister for initiating of treason proceedings against Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
After a lapse of six months, the special court has started the process of recording evidences and testimonies submitted in the high treason case against former president Pervez Musharraf.
In this context, Interior Secretary Shahid Khan on Tuesday appeared before the court to record his testimony as the first witness of the prosecution.
The three-judge Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, however, expressed its annoyance over the interior secretary’s failure in furnishing the original letter submitted by the government to initiate treason proceedings. The letter in question had been sent by the then secretary to Prime Minister for initiating treason proceedings against Musharraf.
Earlier, the court had directed the interior secretary to provide the original letter dated June 26, 2013, wherein the then secretary to prime minister had directed to constitute a joint investigation team (JIT) to collect the evidences regarding the promulgation of November 3, 2007 emergency and PCO.
In reply to a question from the head of prosecution Akram Sheikh, whether direction from the PM’s office was given to him in written or orally regarding the constitution of JIT to collect evidences in treason case, the secretary replied that a written direction had been issued by the then secretary to PM.
In reply to a question by the prosecutor, the secretary claimed that he has the letter, duly signed by then secretary to PM, upon which Justice Tahira Safdar pointed out that it was not original document.
The bench then directed him to provide them copy of the letter on Wednesday.
During the hearing, when head of prosecution Akram Sheikh raised question over the special court’s May 8 order about providing the record of FIA’s investigation, Justice Faisal Arab snubbed him by saying “be selective in your words”. Justice Arab also asked him that instead of raising questions over the special court’s judgment before the bench, he might challenge it.
On the other hand, Musharraf’s counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem expressed apprehension over the record that is provided by the prosecution. He objected that the prosecution did not provide the details of FIA’s correspondence with former Governor Punjab Khalid Maqbool to get his statement about the promulgation of November 3, 2007 emergency and PCO.
He contested that the complainant had violated the court’s May 8 order and produced and submitted few of the documents via FIA JIT comprising of only 237 pages on May 14, 2014 before the bench. The report was also handed over to the defense team.
He also pointed out that the complainant, secretary interior had needlessly re-submitted several documents that were already provided along with the JIT report and avoided to produce some vital documents having nexus with the case in gross violation of the order of special court.
“The attitude of the complainant towards the orders and directions of this court is highly disrespectful, casual and manifests prejudice towards the respondent”, the counsel added.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday.
Petition filed against SHC judgment
A lawyer has filed an appeal in the apex court challenging the Sindh High Court’s judgment regarding the removal of former president Pervez Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL).
Former president of Lahore High Court-Rawalpindi bench Taufiq Asif through his counsel Hamid Khan contended that SHC’s judgment is void, without jurisdiction against the facts and the constitution and same should be set aside in the interest of justice.
He further contended that the name of Musharraf was placed on the ECL in view of the Supreme Court’s August 4, 2013 order, therefore the SHC was bound to follow that order.
The petitioner has expressed apprehension that Musharraf is accused of the offence of high treason and if he is allowed to go abroad than his trail would eventually frustrated. He further contended that the extradition treaty between Pakistan and UAE does not cover ‘high treason’ because such an act is regarded as ‘political crime’ in UAE.
After a lapse of six months, the special court has started the process of recording evidences and testimonies submitted in the high treason case against former president Pervez Musharraf.
In this context, Interior Secretary Shahid Khan on Tuesday appeared before the court to record his testimony as the first witness of the prosecution.
The three-judge Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, however, expressed its annoyance over the interior secretary’s failure in furnishing the original letter submitted by the government to initiate treason proceedings. The letter in question had been sent by the then secretary to Prime Minister for initiating treason proceedings against Musharraf.
Earlier, the court had directed the interior secretary to provide the original letter dated June 26, 2013, wherein the then secretary to prime minister had directed to constitute a joint investigation team (JIT) to collect the evidences regarding the promulgation of November 3, 2007 emergency and PCO.
In reply to a question from the head of prosecution Akram Sheikh, whether direction from the PM’s office was given to him in written or orally regarding the constitution of JIT to collect evidences in treason case, the secretary replied that a written direction had been issued by the then secretary to PM.
In reply to a question by the prosecutor, the secretary claimed that he has the letter, duly signed by then secretary to PM, upon which Justice Tahira Safdar pointed out that it was not original document.
The bench then directed him to provide them copy of the letter on Wednesday.
During the hearing, when head of prosecution Akram Sheikh raised question over the special court’s May 8 order about providing the record of FIA’s investigation, Justice Faisal Arab snubbed him by saying “be selective in your words”. Justice Arab also asked him that instead of raising questions over the special court’s judgment before the bench, he might challenge it.
On the other hand, Musharraf’s counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem expressed apprehension over the record that is provided by the prosecution. He objected that the prosecution did not provide the details of FIA’s correspondence with former Governor Punjab Khalid Maqbool to get his statement about the promulgation of November 3, 2007 emergency and PCO.
He contested that the complainant had violated the court’s May 8 order and produced and submitted few of the documents via FIA JIT comprising of only 237 pages on May 14, 2014 before the bench. The report was also handed over to the defense team.
He also pointed out that the complainant, secretary interior had needlessly re-submitted several documents that were already provided along with the JIT report and avoided to produce some vital documents having nexus with the case in gross violation of the order of special court.
“The attitude of the complainant towards the orders and directions of this court is highly disrespectful, casual and manifests prejudice towards the respondent”, the counsel added.
The hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday.
Petition filed against SHC judgment
A lawyer has filed an appeal in the apex court challenging the Sindh High Court’s judgment regarding the removal of former president Pervez Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL).
Former president of Lahore High Court-Rawalpindi bench Taufiq Asif through his counsel Hamid Khan contended that SHC’s judgment is void, without jurisdiction against the facts and the constitution and same should be set aside in the interest of justice.
He further contended that the name of Musharraf was placed on the ECL in view of the Supreme Court’s August 4, 2013 order, therefore the SHC was bound to follow that order.
The petitioner has expressed apprehension that Musharraf is accused of the offence of high treason and if he is allowed to go abroad than his trail would eventually frustrated. He further contended that the extradition treaty between Pakistan and UAE does not cover ‘high treason’ because such an act is regarded as ‘political crime’ in UAE.