SC didn’t order to put Musharraf on ECL

Detailed judgment issued; apex court says federal govt responsible for striking Musharraf’s name off ECL; nobody’s movement can be restricted on anyone’s liking, disliking; SHC’s decision was appropriate

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday said that the name of former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was not put on the Exit Control List (ECL) following its order.

The apex court maintained that the federal government was responsible for striking the name of former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf off the Exit Control List (ECL).The apex court issued the detailed verdict of the case pertaining to removal of former President Pervez Musharraf’s name from the ECL on Friday.

The SC maintained that restriction on movement of any person could not be imposed on the liking and disliking of anyone.It maintained that the federal government did not make a solid base on the issue.

The 13-page detailed verdict authored by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali stated, “We have heard the arguments of Attorney General for Pakistan on behalf of the appellant and Dr Farough Naseem for respondent General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

For the reasons to be recorded separately, this appeal is dismissed. However this order will not preclude the Federation of Pakistan or the Special Court seized of the proceedings under Article 6 of the Constitution against respondentGeneral (R) Pervez Musharraf from passing any legal order for regulating his custody or restricting his movement.

The order termed that Pervez Musharraf’s name was removed from ECL as per the Sindh High Court order stating that the perusal of impugned judgment revealed that the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi had correctly appreciated the relevant facts of the case, aptly taken into consideration the case, law cited at the bar and recorded valid and cogent reasons for grant of relief to Pervez Musharraf thereby striking down the memorandum No.12 74 2013 ECL dated 05.4.2013 issued by the Ministry of Interior.

Not only this but mindful of the sensitive nature and political hype of the issue as an abundant precaution, it had also suspended the operation of impugned judgment for a period of 15 days to enable the appellant and proforma respondents to avail themselves of any other appropriate remedy including their right to challenge the impugned judgment before the apex court.

Still the appellant took no independent stance and decision in the matter except following the remedy of challenging the said judgment in this appeal which as discussed above is devoid of merits.