Judgement in treason case

Musharraf’s appeal against death sentence filed

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: As an “abundant caution”, retired General Pervez Musharraf has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against capital punishment awarded by a special court on high treason charge, although his sentence has been quashed by the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The appeal has been submitted not to miss the 30 days’ period allowed under the high treason law to call the judgement of the special court into question that any aggrieved party can do.

“We have got all the relief from the LHC, but have still appealed against the special court’s verdict within the given time so that if the LHC decision is set aside at some point of time by the apex court, we are not hurt for not having challenged the trial tribunal’s ruling,” Musharraf’s lawyer Azhar Siddique told The News when contacted.

He said that they have noted in the appeal that they are doing so, so that they are not hit by the limitation period of filing it. “We have written in our plea that we will submit the LHC’s detailed judgement when it will be released. We may then withdraw the appeal if the apex court is satisfied.”

The lawyer said that there was no judicial order whatsoever against Musharraf after the LHC verdict. Not only was the special court decision quashed, the very constitution of the tribunal was also declared illegal, he said.

Azhar Siddique said that an appeal filed by deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was heard nine years after it was submitted in the Supreme Court. However, prominent lawyer Barrister Omar Sajjad told The News that the LHC had no jurisdiction to hear the case because under the high treason act an appeal against the special court judgement lies only in the apex court.

He said it appears that Musharraf filed the appeal within the thirty-day deadline meant for the purpose so that he did not miss it. “If he does not appeal against the special tribunal’s ruling and the LHC verdict is reversed by the Supreme Court on being approached by someone, reviving the original judgement, Musharraf would be left in the lurch because by then the time permitted to file the appeal would have gone by.”

On Thursday, the Pakistan Bar Council announced that they would challenge the LHC decision and formed a lawyers’ committee for the purpose.

Omar Sajjad said that the Supreme Court has the powers not to allow Musharraf to take back his appeal and may choose to proceed on it. However, the matter has now gone to the apex court in any case where it will be conclusively decided, he said.

The special court headed by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth had pronounced its judgement on Dec 17 last, six years after the trial started, imposing death sentence on Musharraf, which turned out to be the first case of its kind tried for high treason since the insertion of the article in the Constitution many decades back.

Neither the prosecution—the federal government, which rejected the verdict—submitted an appeal against the special court decision nor did the former dictator do so as they waited for the LHC decision, which came before the expiration of the time period to file appeal against it. On January 13, a three-judge LHC bench headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and comprising Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir declared the formation of the special court unconstitutional and ruled that the treason case was not prepared in accordance with the law.

The federal government lawyer, Ishtiaq A Khan, fully supported Musharraf. The bench discussed if imposing an emergency amounted to the suspension of the Constitution and Justice Naqvi remarked that “emergency is part of the Constitution. If the situation is such that the government imposes an emergency, will a treason case be filed against it as well? Can an emergency be imposed under Article 232? Then how is it a deviation from the Constitution?”

The bench asked if a person can be punished for an offence committed before an amendment is passed in that regard. “An offence committed in the past cannot be punished after new legislation,” the federal government’s counsel said. Justice Naqvi also said that by adding three words, the parliament had changed the entire status of the Constitution. He was referring to the amendments made in Article 6, where the parliament had deemed the abrogation, subverting or suspension of the Constitution as an offence of high treason. Syed Ali Zafar, who had been appointed the court’s amicus curea, stated that the case against Musharraf seemed to have been filed on the behest of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as there is no record of the matter being on the agenda of any of the cabinet meetings held at the time.

“A case under Article 6 cannot be filed without the cabinet’s approval,” he insisted. The court asked if the matter was on the agenda of any cabinet meeting, to which Zafar responded in the negative. “None of the cabinet meetings were held on the matter.” “This was history’s most important matter; can the cabinet discuss it without it being an agenda item?” the bench had asked.