Detailed verdict in high treason case issued: Musharraf ‘given every opportunity to defend himself’

By News Desk

ISLAMABAD: The Special Court in its detailed verdict in high treason case against former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf stated on Thursday that after the presentation of “undeniable, irrefutable and unimpeachable evidence” by the prosecution against the accused, the court reached to the conclusion that “indeed accused [Musharraf] is guilty and deserves exemplary punishment”. Three-member Special Court headed by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth and comprising Justice Nazar Akbar and Justice Shahid Karim released the 169-page detailed judgment, which included dissenting notes by all the judges.

Dismissing criticism of a trial conducted “in haste”, the Special Court in its detailed judgment stated Musharraf had “been afforded more than his due share of fair trial” and “given every opportunity to defend himself”. The court said “the facts of the case are well documented” and “clearly demonstrate guilt on part of the accused”.

The judgment authored by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth stated: “The usurpation of the functions of government and other organs of State established by the Constitution (is) tantamount to subversion of the Constitution. Exercise of undue influence over judiciary [such as making them cease office and/or take fresh extra-constitutional oath] do tantamount to subversion of the Constitution.

“The trial of high treason is the requirement of the Constitution against those individuals who undermine or attempt to undermine the Constitution by any means.

Justice Karim did not support paragraph 68 of the main order. “Indeed, this portion of the judgment and execution of the sentence is nowhere defined but since it is first impression case and the sentence of death is announced in his absence after declaring the convict as proclaimed offender therefore the sentence is supposed to be executed and in case of his death a sentence, to this extent para 65 prescribes the mode of execution.”

The court had sentenced Musharraf to death earlier this week for imposing a state of emergency on November 3, 2007, adding it had found him guilty of high treason in accordance with Article 6 of the Constitution.

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth of the Peshawar High Court, Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court and Justice Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court. “We, with the majority of 2 as to 1, allow the complaint and hold the accused guilty of high treason as defined at Article 6 of the Constitution and pass punishment under section 2 High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. Thus, the convict be hanged by his neck till he is dead,” the judgment issued on Thursday read. Justice Akbar dissented from the decision.

“It would be in the interest of justice that all those involved (if any) in facilitation of the escape of the fugitive accused may also brought in the net of due course of law and their criminal acts (if any) may be investigated and tried in accordance with law,” the judgment added.

The judge noted Musharraf’s aiders and abettors had not been made part of the complaint when it was filed by the federal government. However, the verdict stated, that does not absolve the government from “investigating these officers and filing a complaint against them”.

Justice Nazar Akbar pointed out the definition of high treason was updated after passage of the 18th Constitutional Amendment in 2010, which, he said, was not intended to be applied retrospectively.

Justice Akbar viewed Musharraf’s actions of imposing emergency on November 3, 2007, could not be seen as “attracting provisions of Article 6 of the Constitution” on the said date.

“Counsel has failed to appreciate that on the date of offence except “abrogate” and “subvert” no other act of any person was considered as an offence under Article 6 of the Constitution. Only the act of “abrogation” and “subversion” of Constitution was considered as an act of high treason.

The words “suspension” and “abeyance” were not used in the language of Article 6 of the Constitution until 20.4.2010 when [they] were introduced through the 18th Amendment almost after two and a half year to the date of alleged offence of high treason.

“In the offence under Article 6 of the Constitution, the charging word is “high treason”, therefore, without properly appreciating what does it mean, this court cannot pass a just and fair verdict.

“But for this reason, both the learned counsel for the prosecution and my learned brothers have referred to the definition of “high treason” by relying on the meaning of ‘high treason’ given in the Oxford Dictionary (Tenth Edition).”

Justice Seth and Justice Karim gave the death sentence while Justice Nazarullah Akbar wrote a dissenting note saying the prosecution team could not prove the treason case.