SC nullifies verdict to include Dogar, Aziz, Zahid in treason case

Orders continuation of trial against Musharraf

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday annulled the decision of the special court conducting a treason trial against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, which had ordered inclusion of former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, former prime minister Shaukat Aziz and ex-federal minister Zahid Hamid in the treason case.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Tariq Masood and Justice Tariq Pervez, announced the verdict reserved on the petition filed by Justice Dogar challenging the Islamabad High Court (IHC) refusal to hear his plea against the earlier verdict of the special court in the treason case.

Last year on November 27, a three-member special court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, had issued directives to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate the role of various facilitators in imposition of the Nov 3, 2007 emergency in the country, including Shaukat Aziz, Justice Dogar and the incumbent federal minister for climate change Zahid Hamid.

The apex court, after hearing the appeal of former Justice Dogar for two days on February 24, had reserved the judgment in the appeal with the ruling that justice would be delivered in accordance with law and no injustice would be done to anyone.

Announcing the reserved verdict, the court set aside the special court’s verdict of Nov 27, 2015 and the Islamabad High Court’s order of Dec 9, 2015 and directed the special court to proceed with the trial of Musharraf without any unnecessary delay.

“This appeal is allowed and all references to the present appellant and two others in the impugned orders passed by the special court and the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad on 27.11.2015 and 09.12.2015 respectively as suspects to be associated with any fresh investigation into the offence of high treason allegedly committed by respondent No2 are set aside,” says the judgment, announced in the open court.

The court ruled that a fresh investigation into the said offence by associating any person with the same lies within the prerogative of the federal government but the special court or the IHC could not name any individual to be associated with any such investigation.

“There is no provision in the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 requiring the special court to await the result of any fresh investigation or to postpone the trial of an accused person till an amended or additional statement of the case or list of accused persons or the charge is submitted by the federal government after such fresh investigation,” says the judgment.

The judgment observed that the Federation considers Musharraf solely responsible for proclaiming the emergency in the country, adding that implicating co-accused and facilitators in the treason case was the job of the Federation and not the special court. The judgment quoted the statement of Attorney General for Pakistan wherein he had submitted before the apex court that the federal government had clearly maintained that the special court had no jurisdiction to introduce any person to be tried in such a case or to require any person to be associated with investigation of such a case.

It is pertinent to mention here that the imposition of emergency rule on November 03, 2007 by Musharraf led to the confinement of a number of superior court judges in their houses and sacking of over 100 others. The judgment observed that it was for the first time that through the order dated 21.11.2014 the special court had introduced the present appellant and two others as accused persons in the case of high treason against the respondent Pervez Musharraf, which order had subsequently been set aside by the IHC on 10.11.2015 but despite setting aside of its earlier order dated 21.11.2014, the special court had reintroduced the appellant and two others as suspects in the said criminal case through its order dated 27.11.2015 and a writ petition filed by the appellant against the said order had been dismissed by the IHC on 09.12.2015.

“We have found the learned counsel for the appellant to be quite justified in maintaining that after setting aside of its order dated 21.11.2014 the special court was left with no occasion whatsoever for reintroducing the appellant and two others as suspects in the relevant case for the purposes of investigation qua their involvement in commission of the alleged offence,” the judgment ruled, adding that conducting an investigation into the matter was surely a prerogative of the federal government and the special court had no jurisdiction to direct the investigating agency to associate the appellant or any other particular person with such investigation.

Meanwhile, Faisal Hussain Chaudhry, one of the counsels of Musharraf, after the court verdict, told The News that they will consider a review petition before the apex court after consultation.