Govt requests Special Court to decide Musharraf treason case

ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Saturday requested the Special Court hearing the high treason case against former military dictator General (R) Pervez Musharraf for imposing martial law on Nov 3, 2007 to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment without waiting for the presence of the accused.

The government filed the application under Section 6(1) (d) and Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 read with the judgments and observations of the Supreme Court in PLD 2016 SC 454(Abdul Hameed Dogar Vs Federal government) and PLD 2014 SC 585 (Gen) (R) Pervez Musharraf Vs Nadeem Ahmed for concluding trial and pronouncement of judgment.

A three-member Special Court headed by Justice Yawar Ali and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Nazar Akbar is hearing the high treason case against Musharraf for subverting the Constitution by imposing an emergency on Nov 3, 2007.

The federation filed the application through prosecution team head Akram Sheikh and the copy available with The News contended that it is not just in the interest of Musharraf but of all the stakeholders including the citizens of Pakistan that this trial be concluded within a reasonable time.

“Needless to say that this trial being unprecedented will set the tenor for any future trials of high treason,” says the application.

The prosecution claimed that it seemed from the manifest conduct of the accused that his interest is in ultimately frustrating any culmination of this treason trial. “Musharraf has categorically made statement to the media abroad that he left the country with the help of his institution, thereby, casting aspersions on armed forces and its then army chief Gen (R) Raheel Sharif.”

The federation submitted that the treason proceedings are covered by provision of a special law, which lays down the entire manner of regulating proceedings of those who are present and of those who choose to stay away from the court.

It contended that Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976 says no trial before the special court shall be adjourned for any purpose unless the special court is of opinion that the adjournment is necessary in the interests of justice and, in particular, no trial shall be adjourned by reason of the absence of any accused person due to illness.

Muhamamd Akram Sheikh contended that there is no need regarding the compliance of section 342 CrPC as it depends on the conduct of the accused. “Musharraf has already availed himself of full opportunity of cross-examining all the prosecution witnesses exhaustibly”, the prosecutor said.

The federation also referred to high court’s verdict, which said: “The intention of the law is that a criminal case must be expeditiously disposed of without unnecessary delay.” It argued that day-to-day hearing in a criminal case is the rule and adjournment is an exception.

It recalled that the learned special court had directed the federal government to suspend Musharraf’s CNIC and passport, which was supplemented by a letter written by the applicant’s counsel to the concerned joint secretary of the Ministry of Interior, but no progress on that direction has been reported to date. The federation prayed the special court that without waiting for the presence of the accused, the trial be concluded and judgment be pronounced on basis of available record thereby bringing the case to a close.