Musharraf’s treason trial: Attorney general’s opinion sought over Zahid Hamid’s petition
IHC registrar raises objection over plea as hearing resumes
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought the opinion of the attorney general over a petition of former law minister Zahid Hamid who had challenged a special court decree to include him as a co-accused in the treason case.
On November 21, the special court had accepted the plea of former president Pervez Musharraf, and had ordered the federal government to include former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, former law minister Zahid Hamid, and former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the co-accused in the treason case. However, Hamid challenged the decision on December 6.
On Monday, Justice Athar Minallah resumed the hearing as an ‘objection case’, as the IHC registrar raised objection over the petition on the ground that the proper appellate forum for such a petition was the Supreme Court. Justice Minallah observed that the powers of the special court were equal to that of the high court, and interim order of a special court could not be challenged in the high court. The court directed AG Salman Aslam Butt to submit his opinion till December 12 whether the petition is maintainable before the court. Former president Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench, Tausif Asif, had also challenged the decision in the IHC and the same court had sought the AG’s opinion. On December 12, both matters are to be heard jointly.
Hamid was minister of science and technology when the special court announced the decision. However, he resigned from his post following the order. In his plea, he contended that the special court was constituted to try Musharraf on the request of the federal government and that it cannot try other people. He argued that under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has no right to ask for a joint trial of the co-accused, and it is the right of the prosecution to decide who to prosecute.
The former minister added that the entire application filed by Musharraf was based on assumptions as there was no solid evidence on record that any other person had collaborated, aided or abetted Musharraf in imposing the state of emergency in 2007. Hamid’s counsel further stated that the special court had passed the order without knowing the fact that he had stopped working as law minister on December 15, 2007. He requested the court to declare illegal the November 21 order.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 9th, 2014.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought the opinion of the attorney general over a petition of former law minister Zahid Hamid who had challenged a special court decree to include him as a co-accused in the treason case.
On November 21, the special court had accepted the plea of former president Pervez Musharraf, and had ordered the federal government to include former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, former law minister Zahid Hamid, and former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the co-accused in the treason case. However, Hamid challenged the decision on December 6.
On Monday, Justice Athar Minallah resumed the hearing as an ‘objection case’, as the IHC registrar raised objection over the petition on the ground that the proper appellate forum for such a petition was the Supreme Court. Justice Minallah observed that the powers of the special court were equal to that of the high court, and interim order of a special court could not be challenged in the high court. The court directed AG Salman Aslam Butt to submit his opinion till December 12 whether the petition is maintainable before the court. Former president Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench, Tausif Asif, had also challenged the decision in the IHC and the same court had sought the AG’s opinion. On December 12, both matters are to be heard jointly.
Hamid was minister of science and technology when the special court announced the decision. However, he resigned from his post following the order. In his plea, he contended that the special court was constituted to try Musharraf on the request of the federal government and that it cannot try other people. He argued that under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has no right to ask for a joint trial of the co-accused, and it is the right of the prosecution to decide who to prosecute.
The former minister added that the entire application filed by Musharraf was based on assumptions as there was no solid evidence on record that any other person had collaborated, aided or abetted Musharraf in imposing the state of emergency in 2007. Hamid’s counsel further stated that the special court had passed the order without knowing the fact that he had stopped working as law minister on December 15, 2007. He requested the court to declare illegal the November 21 order.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 9th, 2014.