Musharraf’s counsel says IHC decision is their moral victory

ISLAMABAD: Counsel for the former President Pervez Musharraf Tuesday said the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision in the high treason case was a consenting judgment given as per the desire of Musharraf and the federal government.
Talking to The News, Faisal Chaudhry Advocate said it was their plea that Musharraf alone could not be tried for high treason because Article 6 of the Constitution forbade the federal government to provide wavier to any accused or aider/abettor/facilitator.
He said it was a consenting judgment where the court had ordered the government to reinvestigate the case including Musharraf and all abettors and prosecution witnesses.
“In fact, it is a moral victory of the defence counsel because the federal government has not only admitted flawed investigation into the case, but also sought an order from the court to reinvestigate the case.
“The same has been the stance of Pervez Musharraf that the investigation is flawed and all the abettors must also be part of investigation and he alone could not be tried,” said the lawyer.
He explained that the court had also disposed of intra-court appeals of Musharraf in which it was his stance that he alone could not be held responsible for the acts done on November 3, 2007. Quoting the judgment, Faisal Chaudhry said the court had also asked the federal government to fairly investigate the case otherwise the investigator will face action.
The lawyer said the court also snubbed the federal government for concealing evidence and case material from the Special Court.
He said the Interior Ministry had also admitted before the IHC that its investigation was defective meaning that holding Musharraf solely responsible for the acts of November 3rd 2007 was not correct.
“We are conscious of the fact that by seeking disposal of petitions, the federal government admitted their defective investigation, which they did not conclude as prescribed by law that is why all these issues have been raised”, says the court order.
Moreover, regarding provision of wavier, the IHC held that in high treason cases which were not of normal nature, wavier was not provided by the law.
“In a case of high treason wavier is not a prerogative of any authority. By virtue of Article 6 of the Constitution and sections applied in the complaint, it is explicitly clear that the aider, abettor or facilitator was required to be prosecuted.
It does not depend upon the sweet will of anybody including investigating agency or federal government”, the judgment says.