Musharraf treason trial: IHC orders reinvestigation of ‘aiders and abettors’
Nullifies Special Court’s order of chargesheeting ex-functionaries
Former president Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
Nullifying a Special Court order to chargesheet three senior ex-functionaries in the Pervez Musharraf treason case, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday directed the federal government to reinvestigate the alleged aiders and abettors.
The special court conducting the high treason trial had directed the government to submit amended or additional statements as well as a statement of formal charges against former premier Shaukat Aziz, former Supreme Court chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and former law minister Zahid Hamid.
All three had challenged the special court’s order of November 21, 2014. According to the verdict, the government was also ordered to include more names as abettors in Musharraf’s act of imposing emergency in the country.
However, the IHC nullified the order and issued directives for reinvestigating the ‘aiders and abettors’. A division bench comprising Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi and Justice Aamer Farooq ordered reinvestigation in light of the government’s earlier proposal that it was willing to probe into the matter again.
Expressing displeasure over the ‘defective investigation’, the court observed that most of the material was concealed even from the special court. The IHC order noted that by seeking disposal of the petitions, the government had admitted its defective investigation.
The court also said the government did not conclude the investigation as prescribed by law, which was why so many issues had been raised and which resulted in the government’s willingness to reinvestigate the case.
The bench ordered reinvestigation without being influenced by any observation in the previous order or remarks passed by the court. “The investigation officer, the investigating agency or the joint investigation team – whatever the case may be – shall not be influenced by such observations made in the impugned order.”
As far as the period of investigation is concerned, the court left it to the special court, saying it may issue directives to conclude the investigation within a certain period of time.
The bench made it clear that high treason was not a personal affair of either the federal government or the investigating agency. Subsequently, the bench provided guidelines for investigation.
“Separating grain from chaff is the power vested in the courts and not in the IO,” read the verdict, adding that the IO needed to place both the aspects before the court, and the exercise of separating grain from chaff was up to the court.
Interestingly, all parties in the case, including Musharraf’s lawyer and the state counsel, have taken the verdict to be in their favour. Musharraf’s counsel Chaudhry Faisal was of the view that Musharraf and the others would also be reinvestigated.
He welcomed the decision, saying that though the decision came after almost a year, it endorsed their version that the investigation was flawed.
On the other hand, Additional Attorney General Afnan Karim Kundi said the order pertained to only three petitioners in their role as ‘aiders and abettors’. He said Musharraf had not filed any petition seeking reinvestigation of his role as the principal accused.
Kundi added that the complaint against Musharraf was pending before the special court and had not been affected by the IHC order.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed the petition of former High Court Bar Association of Rawalpindi president Taufiq Asif on the grounds that he had no locus standi (standing) in the case. Asif had also challenged the order, seeking separation of Musharraf’s trial from the trials of the other accused, as ‘the joint trial would delay adjudication’.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 11th, 2015.
Nullifying a Special Court order to chargesheet three senior ex-functionaries in the Pervez Musharraf treason case, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday directed the federal government to reinvestigate the alleged aiders and abettors.
The special court conducting the high treason trial had directed the government to submit amended or additional statements as well as a statement of formal charges against former premier Shaukat Aziz, former Supreme Court chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and former law minister Zahid Hamid.
All three had challenged the special court’s order of November 21, 2014. According to the verdict, the government was also ordered to include more names as abettors in Musharraf’s act of imposing emergency in the country.
However, the IHC nullified the order and issued directives for reinvestigating the ‘aiders and abettors’. A division bench comprising Justice Noorul Haq N Qureshi and Justice Aamer Farooq ordered reinvestigation in light of the government’s earlier proposal that it was willing to probe into the matter again.
Expressing displeasure over the ‘defective investigation’, the court observed that most of the material was concealed even from the special court. The IHC order noted that by seeking disposal of the petitions, the government had admitted its defective investigation.
The court also said the government did not conclude the investigation as prescribed by law, which was why so many issues had been raised and which resulted in the government’s willingness to reinvestigate the case.
The bench ordered reinvestigation without being influenced by any observation in the previous order or remarks passed by the court. “The investigation officer, the investigating agency or the joint investigation team – whatever the case may be – shall not be influenced by such observations made in the impugned order.”
As far as the period of investigation is concerned, the court left it to the special court, saying it may issue directives to conclude the investigation within a certain period of time.
The bench made it clear that high treason was not a personal affair of either the federal government or the investigating agency. Subsequently, the bench provided guidelines for investigation.
“Separating grain from chaff is the power vested in the courts and not in the IO,” read the verdict, adding that the IO needed to place both the aspects before the court, and the exercise of separating grain from chaff was up to the court.
Interestingly, all parties in the case, including Musharraf’s lawyer and the state counsel, have taken the verdict to be in their favour. Musharraf’s counsel Chaudhry Faisal was of the view that Musharraf and the others would also be reinvestigated.
He welcomed the decision, saying that though the decision came after almost a year, it endorsed their version that the investigation was flawed.
On the other hand, Additional Attorney General Afnan Karim Kundi said the order pertained to only three petitioners in their role as ‘aiders and abettors’. He said Musharraf had not filed any petition seeking reinvestigation of his role as the principal accused.
Kundi added that the complaint against Musharraf was pending before the special court and had not been affected by the IHC order.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed the petition of former High Court Bar Association of Rawalpindi president Taufiq Asif on the grounds that he had no locus standi (standing) in the case. Asif had also challenged the order, seeking separation of Musharraf’s trial from the trials of the other accused, as ‘the joint trial would delay adjudication’.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 11th, 2015.