High treason case: Aziz challenges special court’s decision

Former premier argues Musharraf does not have right to ask for joint trial

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Shaukat Aziz on Saturday challenged the decision of the special court, trying former president Pervez Musharraf on high treason charges, to include his name in the abettors.

The Islamabad High Court registrar has set a hearing on December 24 as an ‘objection case’ after raising an objection on the grounds that a decision taken by a special court could not be challenged in a high court.

Earlier in the day, Aziz filed a petition in the Supreme Court as well, but the registrar did not accept the petition on the grounds that the apex court was not the proper platform for the petition.

The former premier then filed a petition in the IHC objecting to the special court’s directives, issued on November 21. The special court, while accepting Musharraf’s plea, had ordered the federal government to include the names of Aziz, former law minister Zahid Hamid, and former chief justice of Pakistan Abdul Hameed Dogar as the co-accused in the treason case.

Hamid and Dogar had already challenged the decision in the same court. Their counsels the last hearing on December 12 had completed their arguments in the last hearing on December 12. Barrister Farogh Naseem, representing Musharraf, will conclude his arguments on December 23.

Citing the special court, Musharraf, and the federal government as respondents, Aziz has argued that under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has no right to ask for a joint trial with a co-accused as it is the only the right of the prosecution to decide who to prosecute.

He further stated that application filed by Musharraf was based on assumptions as there was no concrete evidence on record that concluded any other person had collaborated, aided or abetted Musharraf in imposing the state of emergency in 2007.

The government had earlier suggested that IHC Justice Athar Minallah, who is hearing the case, constitute a larger bench to hear petitions against the order of the special court about implicating ‘abettors’ in the treason case. Additional attorney general Afnan Karim Kundi, representing the federal government, suggested to the bench that since the special court comprises of three high court judges, it is important that a larger IHC bench heard the case instead of a single-member bench.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 21^st, 2014.