Musharraf case: Trials and tribulations

Lack of coordination between legal teams embarrasses government

ISLAMABAD: Lack of coordination among different ministries and legal wizards of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has caused embarrassment to the federal government in the high treason trial against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, sources privy to the development told The Express Tribune.

The office of the Attorney General, the prosecution team, and the Interior and Law ministries are not on same page on many legal issues. They are also not on good terms with each other, particularly with regards to the high treason trial, sources added. The absence of a more functional and not merely ceremonial Law Minister is adding to the confusion.

During the proceedings of treason trial, the Law Ministry avoided submitting details of investigation in the Special Court mainly because of loopholes in the investigation process, sources said. During the trial, Musharraf filed an application before the Special Court that the names of all accused who participated in the course of FIA investigation be supplied to him. Musharraf has also asked that they be summoned to face trial. However, according to inside sources, the Interior and Law ministries opposed this idea. A reply was submitted through the prosecution that it was not obligatory upon the federal government to supply copies of statements of all the persons examined during the inquiry as envisaged by Section 5 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1976.

The Secretary Interior Shahid Khan, during his testimony, also stated that any alleged aiders, abettors or collaborators as mentioned in the last recital of the Proclamation of Emergency were the assertion of Musharraf.

The prosecution team, in a written reply to the special court, admitted that article 6(2) of the constitution mandates that any person aiding, abetting or collaborating the acts mentioned in article 6(1) would likewise be guilty of high treason. The words used in Article 6(2) only cover cases of aiders, abettors and collaborators.

However, the prosecution team’s reply stated that “there is nothing on record yet which establishes any nexus of other persons in aiding, abetting or collaborating with the Accused in bringing about the actions subject matter of instant trial.”

The prosecution also held that Musharraf was trying to frustrate the trial by opening floodgates of alleged co-accused persons, that too at the tail end of the prosecution evidence, as there is nothing on record yet which establishes any nexus of other persons in aiding, abetting or collaborating with the accused in bringing about the actions subject matter of instant trial.

The Attorney General had assured the SC that to ensure a fair and impartial trial, an oversight commission would be constituted by the PM. However, the concerned ministries seemed unaware when asked about the same.

Sources said that after November 21 judgment of the Special Court, the Law Ministry failed to furnish a clear opinion and advised the Prime Minister Sharif that disbanding the special court is also a suitable option to avoid further complications, as the court transgressed its limits by directing the federal government to add abettors in the treason trial.

In its findings, the Ministry also opposed the idea to confront the Special Court’s interim order in the Supreme Court, citing legal complications, which frustrated the prosecution team and they refused to pursue the treason trial beyond Musharraf.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 19^th, 2014.