Treason trial: Special court partially accepts Musharraf plea to include co-conspirators
Former military chief Musharraf was formally charged in March this year for subverting and circumventing the Constitution by imposing emergency on November 3, 2007 – charges he denies.
The special court accepting Musharraf’s plea today, gave the federal government 15 days to submit a report to the court in this regard so investigations can be started once again, including three co-conspirators.
The case was heard by a three-member bench of the special court in Islamabad, headed by Justice Faisal Arab.
The court has decided that then prime minister Shaukat Aziz, then law minister Zahid Hamid and then chief justice of Pakistan Abdul Hameed Dogar will be included in the investigation but Musharraf's request for including then top military leaders was not accepted.
“They have given a majority judgement that is two judges accepted it,” Musharraf’s counsel Fasial Chaudhry said, while talking to media representatives.
"Based on the material on record, the probability of their involvement as aiders and abettors cannot be ruled out," the court said in its order signed by two of the three-judge bench hearing the case.
"We are therefore of the view that joinder of the then prime minister and the then federal law minister is necessary to secure the ends of justice."
The third judge on the panel gave a dissenting view, dismissing the application to extend the charges.
While speaking to Express News, Musharraf's counsel Farogh Naseem said all those against whom evidence is found will be implicated.
Earlier this year, Musharraf’s counsel Naseem had requested the court to include accomplices in the trial. Labelling the request as premature, Prosecutor Akram Sheikh had said the issue regarding the co-accused can be raised when witnesses will record their testimonies.
The hearing of the case has been adjourned till December 9.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732503274-0/Untitled-design-(43)1732503274-0-405x300.webp "article")
1732501636-0/Untitled-design-(42)1732501636-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732498967-0/Outer-Banks--(1)1732498967-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732086766-0/BeFunky-collage-(74)1732086766-0-165x106.webp "article")
@excalibur: Have you ever heard of the constitution that puts the army chief under the defense minister, below the defense secretary and chairman joint chiefs of staff committee? @Rawalpindi Kid: so Mush cant be handcuffed? under what law? is he above the law?
If our politicians think, like some do, that (unlikely) punishment of a military ruler will close all doors to military adventurism for ever, they are terribly mistaken. All it could perhaps accomplish is to make them extra careful, ensuring that they take all steps to fully cover their acts.. In reality, chances of military adventurism could be eliminated only through honest and efficient governance by civilians, making masses to long for its continuance, thus eliminating the need for them to start hoping or looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, our traditional politicians have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they neither have the aptitude nor the ability to run governments honestly and efficiently - being in politics only to multiply their personal wealth, and that of family and friends - thus paving the way for military takeover, with the military ruler fully confident of receiving a warm welcome from the masses, not necessarily because he could provide better governance, but for creating some, even if remote hope of things improving for the masses eventually, whereas with the traditional rulers, having been tried and failed miserably many times, all hope is lost and there is certainty only of things getting worse with each passing day.
Karachi.
It seems obvious that not having progressed through the civilian 'system' and placed in the presidential slot by an 'accident' a military ruler will not be conversant with the rules of the game and would be seeking advice, at least on crucial matters, from important functionaries around him. So, it is good that at least two of the three judges have accepted the fact that imposing emergency was not done solely by Pervez Musharraf and others were part of decision.
However, as against a long list of parsons as desired by the defence, the judges decided to include just three in the case in order to examine their possible involvement in the decision to impose emergency.
And with the hearing being a joint affair, the case will not proceed unless all of them are produced before the court, and with two of them being abroad, and not very enthusiastic about joining the process, it might be quite a hassle to ensure their attendance at the court. And that will sure cause long delays.
And if at all they get produced before the court, at least Shaukat Aziz could claim that not exactly being a political product, he too sought, and depended on the advice given by other experts in the field, who also ought to be included in the case.
And after a few months proceedings, some of the judges may reluctantly agree to include them in the case as well, thus expanding the list of the accused, setting into motion a process that may continually suck in more and more of the accused.
So, like a television serial with hundreds of episodes, the case has the potential to drag on for months or even years.
And this will suit Nawaz Sharif all right, who will be quite happy to see Pervez Musharraf pinned down, least mindful of the fact that this case would be preventing the judges from attending to other important cases, and was costing the country a lot because having stayed in Saudi palaces, he now thinks of himself, and acts, more like a king, as demonstrated by his stay at the costliest hotels while abroad, and traveling in style, holding up large capacity commercial airliners for days.
I wish someone shows courage to bring to an end this endless and costly exercise in futility.
Karachi
@Rawalpindi Kid: Your comment does have merit.
@imran ali: He can take others opinions...but he, and he alone makes the final decision.
@cautious: Where have you been for the last 6-8 months? This trial started when Musharraf appeared in court and was charged. Evidence is being produced (albeit selectively by prosecution) and arguments are being heard. Question is what are you waiting for? If you are hoping to see him in handcuffs sitting infront of the judges each day, then you are sadly mistaken.
@Parvez: Now that the PM and the Law Minister as well as the CJP are rightfully named in the case, it is clear that Musharraf did not take the action himself alone. Whether the order was constitutional or not is yet to be determined by this court. These 3 additional people will further clarify who was involved with them in the process. This is how the government works constitutionally and Musharraf did nothing different. It is a malified intent of this govt that tried to implicate Musharraf alone, ignoring that the constitution calls for implication of all aiders and abettors. This is a case of vendetta.
Another distraction - this gentlemen deserves his day in court - how about starting the trial?
When the co-conspirators of Zia martial law regime would be charged for treason. Why only partial justice? Also, under what law the military personnel are given exemption by the court?
@ Parvez
Have you ever heard of the Constitution of Pakistan under which the PM advises the President and the President in turn acts on his advice after consultations with the relevant Heads of various Departments ?
Musharraf did exactly the same nothing else
The state is not likened to a ship. It is a false and inappropriate similie. In a state people are the arbiter where as in a ship passengers( people ) are not. However, ship of state can be likened to a ship under sail.Where all in a ship under sail have same destination.
Never heard of any co-Presidents in Pakistan: a first.
now Pandora box will be opened...it was Ch.Iftikhar who created this mess,he should also be tried for taking oath 2 times under PCO
@Pervez...@Pervez...when captain of a ship is in problem...he takes opinion all the people involved in running the ship,same is the case of a patient....when it becomes complicated,the main surgeon follows the opinion of his colleague
This is a sane decion constituting precedence of non-discretionary justice.We should hail it.If army wants to withdraw from politics, let us help it.
The State is likened to a ship and rightly so......and a ship has only one Captain.