• Monday, August 10, 2020

Lhc declares constitution of special court in Musharaf's case unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Pakistani Siasat' started by Mentee, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. Mentee

    Mentee ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,399
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 17,747 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan

    The Lahore High Court on Monday resumed hearing a set of petitions filed by former dictator Pervez Musharraf challenging multiple actions against him, including his conviction in high treason, the establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government. — AFP/File


    The Lahore High Court bench on Monday declared the formation of a special court bench, which heard a treason case against former dictator Pervez Musharraf, as "unconstitutional".

    The LHC bench also ruled that the treason case against Musharraf was not prepared in accordance with the law.

    Musharraf had been sentenced to death by a special court in Islamabad on December 17, 2019, after six years of hearing the treason case against him. The case was filed by the PML-N government in 2013.

    In his petitions, Musharraf had asked the LHC to set aside the special court’s verdict for being illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional for violating Articles 10-A, 4, 5, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution. He also sought suspension of the verdict till a decision on his petition is made.

    A three-member full bench of the LHC comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir heard the petitions.

    As the court resumed hearing Musharraf's pleas today, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A Khan, appearing on behalf of the federal government, presented the summary and record of the formation of the special court. On Friday, Justice Naqvi had asked the federal government to submit a summary on the formation of the special court and had directed the state's lawyer to present arguments on Monday (today).

    AAG Khan said that the matter of forming a case against Musharraf was never included in the cabinet agenda.

    Justice Jahangir asked when the cabinet meeting under discussion was held. AAG Khan responded that it was held on June 24, 2013. He added that the cabinet met again with regards to the appointment of judges for the special court.

    "It is the truth that the formation of the special court to hear the case against Musharraf was done without cabinet approval," he said.

    According to the additional attorney general, the appointment of one of the judges in the special court had come under discussion in the cabinet on May 8, 2018. He added that on October 21, 2018, Justice Yawar Ali had retired and the special court was again broken.

    The court inquired if the matter of the process of filing a complaint in the case had come up in cabinet meetings. AAG Khan responded in the negative.

    "According to your record, there is no agenda or notification regarding the formation of the special court or the filing of the complaint," the bench noted.

    The bench also 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 that government as well?" asked Justice Naqvi.

    "Can an emergency be imposed under Article 232?" asked Justice Bhatti. The additional attorney general conceded that such a step would be in accordance with the Constitution.

    "Then how is it a deviation from the Constitution?" asked Justice Naqvi. The AAG told the court that while passing the 18th Amendment, the parliament had included the suspension of the Constitution in Article 6 as an offence.

    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 told the court.

    Justice Naqvi further 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.

    "How many members comprised the FIA team that conducted the inquiry against Perves Musharraf?" asked Justice Naqvi, as the court examined the proceedings of the trial against Musharraf.

    "A 20-25 member team was constituted which completed the inquiry," the AAG told the court.

    "How many of those members participated in the trial?" the judge asked.

    "Only one of them appeared [before the special court] for the trial," said AAG Khan.

    "What is the value of an inquiry against Pervez Musharraf when those who conducted the inquiry did not appear during the trial [proceedings]?" remarked the judge.


    This is a developing story - - - - - - - -
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. graphican

    graphican ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    11,478
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Ratings:
    +43 / 17,900 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Chalo... entire verdict against Musharaf is gone down the drain. That wasn't a just decision anyway and judicial bias was floating on the surface of the verdict.
     
  3. Amavous

    Amavous FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    525
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,672 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Special court formed for Musharraf treason trial 'unconstitutional', rules LHC
    Rana BilalUpdated January 13, 2020

    [​IMG]
    The Lahore High Court on Monday resumed hearing a set of petitions filed by former dictator Pervez Musharraf challenging multiple actions against him, including his conviction in high treason, the establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government. — AFP/File


    The Lahore High Court bench on Monday declared the formation of a special court bench, which heard a treason case against former dictator Pervez Musharraf, as "unconstitutional".

    The LHC bench also ruled that the treason case against Musharraf was not prepared in accordance with the law.

    Musharraf had been sentenced to death by a special court in Islamabad on December 17, 2019, after six years of hearing the treason case against him. The case was filed by the PML-N government in 2013.

    In his petitions, Musharraf had asked the LHC to set aside the special court’s verdict for being illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional for violating Articles 10-A, 4, 5, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution. He also sought suspension of the verdict till a decision on his petition is made.

    A three-member full bench of the LHC comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir heard the petitions.

    As the court resumed hearing Musharraf's pleas today, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A Khan, appearing on behalf of the federal government, presented the summary and record of the formation of the special court. On Friday, Justice Naqvi had asked the federal government to submit a summary on the formation of the special court and had directed the state's lawyer to present arguments on Monday (today).

    AAG Khan said that the matter of forming a case against Musharraf was never included in the cabinet agenda.

    Justice Jahangir asked when the cabinet meeting under discussion was held. AAG Khan responded that it was held on June 24, 2013. He added that the cabinet met again with regards to the appointment of judges for the special court.

    "It is the truth that the formation of the special court to hear the case against Musharraf was done without cabinet approval," he said.

    According to the additional attorney general, the appointment of one of the judges in the special court had come under discussion in the cabinet on May 8, 2018. He added that on October 21, 2018, Justice Yawar Ali had retired and the special court was again broken.

    The court inquired if the matter of the process of filing a complaint in the case had come up in cabinet meetings. AAG Khan responded in the negative.

    "According to your record, there is no agenda or notification regarding the formation of the special court or the filing of the complaint," the bench noted.

    The bench also 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 that government as well?" asked Justice Naqvi.

    "Can an emergency be imposed under Article 232?" asked Justice Bhatti. The additional attorney general conceded that such a step would be in accordance with the Constitution.

    "Then how is it a deviation from the Constitution?" asked Justice Naqvi. The AAG told the court that while passing the 18th Amendment, the parliament had included the suspension of the Constitution in Article 6 as an offence.

    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 told the court.

    Justice Naqvi further 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.

    "How many members comprised the FIA team that conducted the inquiry against Perves Musharraf?" asked Justice Naqvi, as the court examined the proceedings of the trial against Musharraf.

    "A 20-25 member team was constituted which completed the inquiry," the AAG told the court.

    "How many of those members participated in the trial?" the judge asked.

    "Only one of them appeared [before the special court] for the trial," said AAG Khan.

    "What is the value of an inquiry against Pervez Musharraf when those who conducted the inquiry did not appear during the trial [proceedings]?" remarked the judge.

    Musharraf case was not on cabinet agenda
    During the hearing on Friday, the LHC had posed questions regarding the legality of the treason case and the formation of the special court that conducted the trial and had handed Musharraf the death sentence.

    Read: No record of cabinet's approval over filing of treason case against Musharraf, LHC told

    Barrister Ali Zafar, who has been appointed the court's amicus curea, said 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," Barrister Zafar had insisted. The court asked if the matter was on the agenda of any cabinet meeting, to which Zafar had responded in the negative.

    "None of the cabinet meetings were held on the matter," Barrister Zafar said.

    "This was history's most important matter; can the cabinet discuss it without it being an agenda item?" the bench had asked.

    In an earlier hearing on Musharraf's plea, AAG Ishtiaq A Khan on Thursday told the bench that the formation of the special trial court had not been approved by the federal cabinet.

    He said the record showed that only one letter was written by then premier Nawaz to the ministry of interior for the initiation of an inquiry against Musharraf on the charge of high treason.



    https://www.dawn.com/news/1528058/s...rraf-treason-trial-unconstitutional-rules-lhc
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. Yaseen1

    Yaseen1 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,273
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Ratings:
    +3 / 8,395 / -8
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    lets see whether those people who are blaming Lhc to be working against national interests earlier adopt similar stance against lhc and raise questions on it credibility like they did in past
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  5. Mentee

    Mentee ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,399
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 17,747 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Now that the Verdict has been delivered in Musharaf's favour, do the judges deserve a gun salute? Anyone?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Amavous

    Amavous FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    525
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,672 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    بِگ باس کو سزائے موت سنانے والی عدالت کو سزائے موت سنا دی گئی

    (via Twitter)
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. SIPRA

    SIPRA SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,681
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Ratings:
    +4 / 12,699 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    No Comments, except:

    :omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:
     
  8. Xestan

    Xestan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,971
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Ratings:
    +3 / 2,825 / -0
    So, LHC is pro-Sharif and now it's pro-Military?

    On a serious note, SC decides this matter since the Special Court is above the jurisdiction of any High Court.
     
  9. SIPRA

    SIPRA SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,681
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Ratings:
    +4 / 12,699 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Adaalat e Aliya ab Adaalat e Meera ban chuki hae.:lol:
     
  10. Pakistan Ka Beta

    Pakistan Ka Beta FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,048
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2019
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,573 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    V good decision by LHC, as Special court was formed without prior Constitutional steps e.t.c
     
  11. Verve

    Verve ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,473
    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    Ratings:
    +8 / 12,076 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    You want a gun salute for higher judiciary when the higher judiciary itself is the cause of the whole fukc up!?

    Musharaf should have been tried for 1999 coup but judges for their salaries and perks validated it, and then played a revenge game on 2007 Emergency that was constitutional then and aimed ONLY at Judiciary.

    Gun salute? No, but firing squad yes! But that would be unconstitutional.
     
  12. Mentee

    Mentee ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,399
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 17,747 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Over gun point yes.

    G g zoroor ku nahi, bani abbas ki trha kabro sy Nikal kr koray b maray ja sskty hain.
     
  13. Verve

    Verve ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,473
    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    Ratings:
    +8 / 12,076 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Kana's SC could have struck that SC judgement, had it not been his and other judges asses on line too. And he had all the power during PPP gov to do so. After all majority are/were PCO judges who are still holding top spots.

    Instead he decided to save his and his kins asses and decided on revenge for 2007.

    Your attempt to whitewash the judiciary is very weak. You seriously believe that majority of judiciary and lawyers are clean and honest?
     
  14. Mentee

    Mentee ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,399
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 17,747 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    As I said earlier that coup arrangement was already ratified by the majlis e Shura so SC couldn't strike down nothing.

    I always take side of the weak no matter how ridiculous it may sound sometimes.
     
  15. Verve

    Verve ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,473
    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    Ratings:
    +8 / 12,076 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    So now you are saying that SC can't strike an Act of Parliament / Constitutional Amendment?

    Kana the Suo Motto grandmaster just let it all pass - for this own salary and perks!

    You didn't answer the actual question.