Treason case: Ruling reserved on plea for trial of civil, military officials
Special Court to announce judgment on November 21
ISLAMABAD:
The Special Court hearing a high treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on Friday reserved its judgment on his plea seeking a joint trial of all civil, judicial and military leaders who were part of the setup when a state of emergency was declared on November 3, 2007.
The court will announce the ruling on November 21.
During Friday’s proceedings, Musharraf’s lead counsel Barrister Farogh Nasim argued that the imposition of emergency was a collective decision taken in consultation with the then civil and military leaders.
Nasim recalled that he had also argued in favour of a trial of all previous military coups. “If the act is the same series and of the same transaction then all persons involved in the unconstitutional act should be put together,” Nasim said, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court to supplement his argument.
Nasim said the way the prosecution had presented this case, former army chief Gen (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani would also be made accountable as a principal accused.
Gen Kayani – after assuming office as army chief – had not lifted the emergency rule which showed that Musharraf was not solely responsible for this act, he said. The head of three-judge Special Court, Justice Faisal Arab, observed that Nasim’s argument was contradictory to his earlier statement. But Nasim held that the prosecution had prepared the case in a contradictory manner.
Nasim said that as per Article 92(2) Schedule III every federal minister was also responsible to protect and preserve the Constitution as per oath but after giving consent to the emergency rule they violated their oath.
Citing a resolution passed by the National Assembly after the promulgation of the emergency rule, Nasim said the federal cabinet had also endorsed Musharraf’s act. “The court, while applying the principle of ‘series of transaction and similar action’ should summon all accused jointly because imposition of emergency is not a work of an individual,” he said.
Nasim presented transcript and a DVD containing former prime minister Shaukat Aziz’s November 4, 2007 speech in which he had taken ownership of the decision of imposition of emergency. He also referred to former Punjab governor Khalid Maqbool’s statement and said the court should hold a joint trial of all aiders and abettors.
The prosecution side raised objection for making the transcript part of record to which Justice Faisal Arab said the court would decide later whether or not these evidences should be made part of the record.
Nasim said that no PCO judge could be treated as ‘a sacred cow’, particularly after the promulgation of the 18th constitutional amendment. “Every time in Pakistan, legitimacy for an unconstitutional step was taken from the judiciary, which made Pakistan a special country among third world countries,” he said. A member of the special court, however, contradicted this statement.
The prosecution side, headed by advocate Akram Sheikh, requested the court record Musharraf’s final statement without any delay so the trial could reach its logical end. However, Nasim said there was no point of closure of evidence in this case because his fresh application would decide the fact of this case.
“In case the court decides this matter in my favour, then the prosecution is bound to collect evidences against aiders and abettors,” he said. Musharraf’s counsel said the court has inherent powers to order a joint trial and then the prosecution was bound to come up with evidences against them.
After the hearing, a senior member of the prosecution told The Express Tribune that it is interesting to see who actually had obtained favourable statements for Musharraf before every hearing of treason trial.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 1st, 2014.
The Special Court hearing a high treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on Friday reserved its judgment on his plea seeking a joint trial of all civil, judicial and military leaders who were part of the setup when a state of emergency was declared on November 3, 2007.
The court will announce the ruling on November 21.
During Friday’s proceedings, Musharraf’s lead counsel Barrister Farogh Nasim argued that the imposition of emergency was a collective decision taken in consultation with the then civil and military leaders.
Nasim recalled that he had also argued in favour of a trial of all previous military coups. “If the act is the same series and of the same transaction then all persons involved in the unconstitutional act should be put together,” Nasim said, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court to supplement his argument.
Nasim said the way the prosecution had presented this case, former army chief Gen (retd) Ashfaq Parvez Kayani would also be made accountable as a principal accused.
Gen Kayani – after assuming office as army chief – had not lifted the emergency rule which showed that Musharraf was not solely responsible for this act, he said. The head of three-judge Special Court, Justice Faisal Arab, observed that Nasim’s argument was contradictory to his earlier statement. But Nasim held that the prosecution had prepared the case in a contradictory manner.
Nasim said that as per Article 92(2) Schedule III every federal minister was also responsible to protect and preserve the Constitution as per oath but after giving consent to the emergency rule they violated their oath.
Citing a resolution passed by the National Assembly after the promulgation of the emergency rule, Nasim said the federal cabinet had also endorsed Musharraf’s act. “The court, while applying the principle of ‘series of transaction and similar action’ should summon all accused jointly because imposition of emergency is not a work of an individual,” he said.
Nasim presented transcript and a DVD containing former prime minister Shaukat Aziz’s November 4, 2007 speech in which he had taken ownership of the decision of imposition of emergency. He also referred to former Punjab governor Khalid Maqbool’s statement and said the court should hold a joint trial of all aiders and abettors.
The prosecution side raised objection for making the transcript part of record to which Justice Faisal Arab said the court would decide later whether or not these evidences should be made part of the record.
Nasim said that no PCO judge could be treated as ‘a sacred cow’, particularly after the promulgation of the 18th constitutional amendment. “Every time in Pakistan, legitimacy for an unconstitutional step was taken from the judiciary, which made Pakistan a special country among third world countries,” he said. A member of the special court, however, contradicted this statement.
The prosecution side, headed by advocate Akram Sheikh, requested the court record Musharraf’s final statement without any delay so the trial could reach its logical end. However, Nasim said there was no point of closure of evidence in this case because his fresh application would decide the fact of this case.
“In case the court decides this matter in my favour, then the prosecution is bound to collect evidences against aiders and abettors,” he said. Musharraf’s counsel said the court has inherent powers to order a joint trial and then the prosecution was bound to come up with evidences against them.
After the hearing, a senior member of the prosecution told The Express Tribune that it is interesting to see who actually had obtained favourable statements for Musharraf before every hearing of treason trial.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 1st, 2014.