Nov 3 emergency: Special court reserves judgement on Musharraf's plea for joint trial

Musharraf's lawyer says imposing emergency was a collective action taken in consultation with others

ISLAMABAD: A three-judge special court on Friday reserved its judgment on an application by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, seeking joint trial of all civil, judicial and military leaders who were part of the setup when emergency was imposed in the country on November 3, 2007.

The court would announce its decision on November 21.

During Friday’s proceedings, Farogh Nasim – who is representing Musharraf - told the court the judiciary has in past provided cover to unconstitutional steps taken in the country.

“No PCO judge can be treated as a sacred cow particularly after promulgation of 18th constitutional amendment,” he argued.

Nasim presented a transcript and DVD of former prime minister Shaukat Aziz’s speech in which he took full responsibility for the decision to impose emergency.

The prosecution raised objection to making the transcript part of the case record to which Justice Faisal Arab, head of the special court, said the decision to include it or not would be taken later.

Nasim argued that imposition of emergency was a collective decision taken in consultation with then civil and military leaders. “In my view, no part of the case falls under Article 6,” he said.

The counsel for the former military ruler reiterated his earlier stance for investigation into all past coups. Citing a Supreme Court judgment in favour of his argument, Nasim said if all such acts were unconstitutional then everyone should be tried equally.

Basing his arguments on the way the prosecution has built the case, Musharraf’s lawyer further said that former army chief General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani can be named as principal accused. After assuming the office of army chief, Nasim said Kiyani did not lift the emergency which shows that Musharraf did not take this decision alone.

At this point, Justice Arab told Musharraf’s lawyer his arguments were contradicting his previous statements to which Nasim replied that the prosecution has prepared the case in a contradictory manner.

Quoting Article 92(2) Schedule III, Nasim said every federal minister is responsible to protect and preserve the Constitution as per their oath but they violated it after giving their consent to the emergency rule.

Citing a resolution passed by the lower house following the emergency rule, Nasim said the federal cabinet endorsed the decision to impose emergency. Applying the principal of ‘series of transaction and similar action’, Nasim said all accused should be summoned jointly because imposition of emergency was not a work of an individual.

He said there was no reason for closure of evidence in this case because his fresh application would decide the future of this case. He argued that if the court decides this matter in his favour then the prosecution will have to collect evidence against aiders and abettors.

Nasim said the court has the authority to order joint trial and then the prosecution will be bound to collect evidence against the accomplices.