Musharraf’s treason trial: Govt floats idea of larger bench to Islamabad court
Proposal comes during hearing of two petitions challenging November 21 order of special court
ISLAMABAD:
The government on Friday proposed that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) constitute a larger bench for hearing petitions against a special court decree on implicating 'abettors' in the treason case.
The suggestion was made through the additional attorney general during hearing of the two petitions challenging the November 21 decree of the special court that 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.
The co-accused had challenged the decision in the IHC, however, the IHC's registrar raised objection over the petition on the grounds that the proper appellate forum for such a petition was the Supreme Court.
On Friday, Additional Attorney General Afnan Karim Kundi, representing the federal government, suggested to Justice Athar Minallah that since the special court comprises three judges of the high courts, therefore, it is significant that a larger bench of IHC judges would hear the case instead of single member bench.
The attorney general said that since the treason case is the first of its kind in the history of Pakistan and it would set a precedent for the future, it would be better to form a 'larger bench'.
However, Justice Minallah said that he was also aware of the sensitivity of the case but the final verdict will be announced after hearing all the stakeholders.
On Friday, counsels for Zahid Hamid and Justice Dogar argued against the maintainability of the case. Khawaja Haris Ahmed representing Hamid maintained that the IHC could hear the appeal against the special court’s final order as under the special court laws an appeal against the final judgment can only be filed in the Supreme Court.
He argued that the order of November 21 of the special court was not the final judgment as it was an order passed on an application of former president Pervez Musharraf. The counsel claimed that the special court could not direct the federal government to include certain individuals as accused in the treason case.
Iftikhar Gillani, counsel for Justice Dogar, contended before the court that the special court passed an adverse order against his client even without hearing his point of view.
He claimed that after imposition of November 3, 2007 emergency for which Gen Musharraf is facing treason case, several judges took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) but the court not only ordered to include Justice Dogar as accused in the case but also made observations that there are concrete evidence for his alleged involvement in imposition of emergency.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court in its July 31, 2009 judgment passed in the Sindh High Court Bar Association petition never mentioned involvement of Justice Dogar in the imposition of emergency.
Justice Minallah then adjourned the hearing till December 23, the day when the counsel for Gen Musharraf barrister Farogh Nasim and counsel for the federal government would argue on the maintainability of the petitions.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 13th, 2014.
The government on Friday proposed that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) constitute a larger bench for hearing petitions against a special court decree on implicating 'abettors' in the treason case.
The suggestion was made through the additional attorney general during hearing of the two petitions challenging the November 21 decree of the special court that 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.
The co-accused had challenged the decision in the IHC, however, the IHC's registrar raised objection over the petition on the grounds that the proper appellate forum for such a petition was the Supreme Court.
On Friday, Additional Attorney General Afnan Karim Kundi, representing the federal government, suggested to Justice Athar Minallah that since the special court comprises three judges of the high courts, therefore, it is significant that a larger bench of IHC judges would hear the case instead of single member bench.
The attorney general said that since the treason case is the first of its kind in the history of Pakistan and it would set a precedent for the future, it would be better to form a 'larger bench'.
However, Justice Minallah said that he was also aware of the sensitivity of the case but the final verdict will be announced after hearing all the stakeholders.
On Friday, counsels for Zahid Hamid and Justice Dogar argued against the maintainability of the case. Khawaja Haris Ahmed representing Hamid maintained that the IHC could hear the appeal against the special court’s final order as under the special court laws an appeal against the final judgment can only be filed in the Supreme Court.
He argued that the order of November 21 of the special court was not the final judgment as it was an order passed on an application of former president Pervez Musharraf. The counsel claimed that the special court could not direct the federal government to include certain individuals as accused in the treason case.
Iftikhar Gillani, counsel for Justice Dogar, contended before the court that the special court passed an adverse order against his client even without hearing his point of view.
He claimed that after imposition of November 3, 2007 emergency for which Gen Musharraf is facing treason case, several judges took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) but the court not only ordered to include Justice Dogar as accused in the case but also made observations that there are concrete evidence for his alleged involvement in imposition of emergency.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court in its July 31, 2009 judgment passed in the Sindh High Court Bar Association petition never mentioned involvement of Justice Dogar in the imposition of emergency.
Justice Minallah then adjourned the hearing till December 23, the day when the counsel for Gen Musharraf barrister Farogh Nasim and counsel for the federal government would argue on the maintainability of the petitions.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 13th, 2014.