Treason trial: No mala fide intentions behind FIA investigation against Musharraf, says agency director
Prosecution terms Musharraf's attempts to include collaborators in November 2007 emergency a tactic to delay the case.
ISLAMABAD:
As the special court heard the high treason case against former President General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf on Thursday, the head of Federal Investigation Agency's (FIA) investigation team Khalid Qureshi maintained that the investigation had not been initiated with mala fide intentions.
Qureshi, who is also the additional director of FIA, admitted that his relatives are members of ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). However, he maintained that their investigation into Musharraf, initiated at the behest of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was not done so with mala fide intentions to single out one person.
Qureshi was the last witness presented by the prosecution team, which concluded its evidences against former president on Thursday.
The additional director rejected the notion that the evidence against suspected Musharraf's collaborators who helped him impose emergency, was suppressed.
Claiming that the investigations were carried out on merit and independently on the basis of facts, Qureshi said that it was incorrect that the former president was falsely implicated in the high treason case.
He also informed the three member bench of the special court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, that the investigation team had contacted Ministry of Defence for relevant documents regarding imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007, but they had yet to receive the required documents.
The FIA official further said that Musharraf's Principal Secretary Mohsin Hafeez had told his team that documents relating to the army were taken away by Musharraf’s Chief Staff General (retd) Hamid Javed. However, the responsibility of removing records from President Secretariat had not been fixed, Qureshi added.
After the completion of prosecution's evidence, the special court under section 6(1)(d) of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1976 shall examine the accused (Pervez Musharraf) and record his statement as required by section 342 of CrPc.
The hearing was adjourned till October 1, 2014.
On the next hearing, arguments would be heard on Musharraf's application to dismiss the complaint filed under Article 6 of the Constitution against him as well as refiled complaint after inclusion and addition of all the persons as co-accused, whether after re-investigation or otherwise.
No evidence of involvement of any co-accuse
Replying to Musharraf’s plea for inclusion of all the persons or classes of persons as co-accused, the prosecution’s team, headed by Advocate Akram Sheikh, contended that there is nothing on record yet which establishes any nexus of anyone in aiding/abetting or collaborating with the accused to impose emergency.
The prosecution alleged that the accused is trying to frustrate the trial by opening floodgates of alleged co-accused persons, that too at the tail end of the prosecution evidence.
“As per the Act of 1976 and without prejudice to the stance of the prosecution, in the eventuality that any accused is added after examination of witness the Special Court may opt to recall and rehear any such witnesses whose evidence in its opinion affects such accused. The defense by adding a huge list of over hundreds of alleged co-accused wants to badger the already deposed prosecution witness as well as frustrating conclusion of instant trial.”
The prosecution contended that similar prayers have already been determined by the special court in its March 7, 8 and June 13 orders.
Plea submitted by defence team stated that Musharraf had filed without waiting for any cogent evidence being advanced by any witnesses regarding participation of other persons as co-accused.
“The accused has time and again attempted to use the alleged co-accused as a curtain to hide behind and to justify his actions. That the accused must pay heed to his own actions which are subject matter of instant trial, irrespective of any co-accused being either arrayed or being tried together with him or separately.”
The prosecution rejected the defence team's allegation of selective prosecution as there is no cavil with the proposition that Article 9, 10-A and 25 govern the fundamental rights of a citizen with regard to security of person, right to fair trial and equality of citizens.
“All these three rights of the accused are protected and there has been no violation of the above three rights necessitating instant application. That in fact the submissions of Musharraf in the instant application, if allowed, would infringe the fundamental rights of hundreds of people.
"Musharraf has a self-contradictory plea as on the one hand he is submitting that the offense as charged does not fall under Article 6 and at the same time he wants to throw a wide net implicating hundreds of other people as co-accused, the reply maintained.
“There has been no evidence so far in the trial necessitating arraignment of any of the listed persons/class of persons as co-accused.”
The reply states that aiding/abetting/collaborating must be an overt act as this has serious consequences of an aider and abettor being held liable to the same degree as the principal.
It also states that testimony of Director Anti Corruption Wing Khalid Rasool does not establish the role of any other person as co-accused. “FIA team’s head Khalid Qureshi in his examination also explicitly, denied involvement of other persons,” the prosecution team further stated.
As the special court heard the high treason case against former President General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf on Thursday, the head of Federal Investigation Agency's (FIA) investigation team Khalid Qureshi maintained that the investigation had not been initiated with mala fide intentions.
Qureshi, who is also the additional director of FIA, admitted that his relatives are members of ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). However, he maintained that their investigation into Musharraf, initiated at the behest of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, was not done so with mala fide intentions to single out one person.
Qureshi was the last witness presented by the prosecution team, which concluded its evidences against former president on Thursday.
The additional director rejected the notion that the evidence against suspected Musharraf's collaborators who helped him impose emergency, was suppressed.
Claiming that the investigations were carried out on merit and independently on the basis of facts, Qureshi said that it was incorrect that the former president was falsely implicated in the high treason case.
He also informed the three member bench of the special court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, that the investigation team had contacted Ministry of Defence for relevant documents regarding imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007, but they had yet to receive the required documents.
The FIA official further said that Musharraf's Principal Secretary Mohsin Hafeez had told his team that documents relating to the army were taken away by Musharraf’s Chief Staff General (retd) Hamid Javed. However, the responsibility of removing records from President Secretariat had not been fixed, Qureshi added.
After the completion of prosecution's evidence, the special court under section 6(1)(d) of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1976 shall examine the accused (Pervez Musharraf) and record his statement as required by section 342 of CrPc.
The hearing was adjourned till October 1, 2014.
On the next hearing, arguments would be heard on Musharraf's application to dismiss the complaint filed under Article 6 of the Constitution against him as well as refiled complaint after inclusion and addition of all the persons as co-accused, whether after re-investigation or otherwise.
No evidence of involvement of any co-accuse
Replying to Musharraf’s plea for inclusion of all the persons or classes of persons as co-accused, the prosecution’s team, headed by Advocate Akram Sheikh, contended that there is nothing on record yet which establishes any nexus of anyone in aiding/abetting or collaborating with the accused to impose emergency.
The prosecution alleged that the accused is trying to frustrate the trial by opening floodgates of alleged co-accused persons, that too at the tail end of the prosecution evidence.
“As per the Act of 1976 and without prejudice to the stance of the prosecution, in the eventuality that any accused is added after examination of witness the Special Court may opt to recall and rehear any such witnesses whose evidence in its opinion affects such accused. The defense by adding a huge list of over hundreds of alleged co-accused wants to badger the already deposed prosecution witness as well as frustrating conclusion of instant trial.”
The prosecution contended that similar prayers have already been determined by the special court in its March 7, 8 and June 13 orders.
Plea submitted by defence team stated that Musharraf had filed without waiting for any cogent evidence being advanced by any witnesses regarding participation of other persons as co-accused.
“The accused has time and again attempted to use the alleged co-accused as a curtain to hide behind and to justify his actions. That the accused must pay heed to his own actions which are subject matter of instant trial, irrespective of any co-accused being either arrayed or being tried together with him or separately.”
The prosecution rejected the defence team's allegation of selective prosecution as there is no cavil with the proposition that Article 9, 10-A and 25 govern the fundamental rights of a citizen with regard to security of person, right to fair trial and equality of citizens.
“All these three rights of the accused are protected and there has been no violation of the above three rights necessitating instant application. That in fact the submissions of Musharraf in the instant application, if allowed, would infringe the fundamental rights of hundreds of people.
"Musharraf has a self-contradictory plea as on the one hand he is submitting that the offense as charged does not fall under Article 6 and at the same time he wants to throw a wide net implicating hundreds of other people as co-accused, the reply maintained.
“There has been no evidence so far in the trial necessitating arraignment of any of the listed persons/class of persons as co-accused.”
The reply states that aiding/abetting/collaborating must be an overt act as this has serious consequences of an aider and abettor being held liable to the same degree as the principal.
It also states that testimony of Director Anti Corruption Wing Khalid Rasool does not establish the role of any other person as co-accused. “FIA team’s head Khalid Qureshi in his examination also explicitly, denied involvement of other persons,” the prosecution team further stated.