Musharraf verdict: Govt has reservation over whole verdict, not only para-66: Swati

ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Senator Azam Swati on Sunday termed the special court’s verdict against former president General (R) Pervez Musharraf as 'judicial adventurism'.

“This is not judicial activism but judicial adventurism,” Swati told Geo Parliament, while talking about the death penalty given to the former military ruler over his November 2007 steps of imposing emergency and suspending the Constitution.

A three-judge special tribunal, established under the orders of Supreme Court, on Thursday found Musharraf of committing crime under Article 6.

The senator questioned if the judges who wrote the verdict were writing a new history of the Constitution and the law. He added that the government had 'reservations over the whole verdict' and not just the controversial paragraph 66.

“The selection of words in the verdict point to the judge’s ego and bias,” said the minister.

Paragraph 66 of the verdict, authored by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth, had "directed the law enforcement agencies to arrest Musharraf and if he was found dead, drag his body to the D-Chowk in Islamabad and hang it for three days". The observation drew ire from the government, political and legal analysts and the military.

The minister said that there were other people as well who were involved in decision making with Musharraf at that time. Swati added that 'action against the co-conspirators' will be included in the cabinet’s agenda.

When asked about the government’s options on the extension of the army chief’s tenure, the minister said the government had two to three options on the legislation.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf senator stated that the first option the government had was to 'amend the Army Act'.

“The second option is to bring a public bill and the third option is to table an explanatory bill,” said the senator. He added that under the third option the government will clarify on the army’s chief’s extension.

The minster said that the parliament’s clarity on a matter needs to be accepted by the apex court or any court. "The Supreme Court cannot advise or order the Parliament", he stated. —Agencies