Musharraf verdict: Govt to approach Supreme Judicial Council over judge's 'despicable' observation

[ghazi52]

Musharraf verdict: Govt to approach Supreme Judicial Council over judge's 'despicable' observation

December 19, 2019

Law Minister Farogh Naseem addressing a press conference in Islamabad on Thursday. — DawnNewsTV
Law Minister Farogh Naseem on Thursday announced the federal government's decision to approach the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for the restraining — and subsequent removal — of the judge who had authored the detailed verdict in the Musharraf treason case.

The judgment has been authored by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth who has directed that the "corpse" of former president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf be "dragged to D-Chowk" and "hanged for 3 days" in paragraph 66.

"I do not understand the authority under which this sort of observation was given," said Naseem, as he addressed a press conference in Islamabad on Thursday evening.

Referring to a past judgment by Supreme Court Justice Naseem Hasan Shah in which the "universal declaration of human rights in Islam" had been referenced as well Article 14 which speaks of the "fundamental right of the dignity of man" was invoked, the law minister said that it was ruled that public hangings are in contravention to the Constitution and Islam.

"There is no room in Article 6 of the Constitution; in the High Treason Act, 1973; in the Criminal Amendment Act of the special court, 1976; for a judge to have the authority to present such an observation," said Naseem.

"With due respect, this is an unprecedented, despicable and completely wrong observation by the judge."

The law minister then spoke of Article 209 under which Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan had earlier in the day announced his intention for a trial against the judge.

Naseem said that Article 209 comes into effect when there is misconduct due to "incompetence" or when there is "questionable mental capacity".

"In Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's time 'incompetence' was added to the SJC rules as grounds for misconduct," said the minister.

"Keeping in view Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth's observations, the federal government has decided to approach the Supreme Judicial Council and file a request stating that such a judge has no authority to be a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He is unfit.

"When such observations are given, not only is the court's privilege hurt, it becomes a test for the administration of justice.

"Our request is, because he has proven himself to be mentally unfit and incompetent, he must immediately be prevented from working. We request the Supreme Court judges to restrain him from any administrative or judicial work," said the law minister.

Naseem said that any judge giving such observations is not only acting against the law but is proving himself to be counterproductive to the confidence that one must have in the judiciary.

"Very soon we will move a reference against the judge in the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 209," he concluded by saying.

The controversial paragraph has been widely criticised by the lawyers community as well as members of civil society.

AG had said that the verdict was "unconstitutional, unethical, inhuman, and was given by an individual whose sanity is questionable".

Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor, the director general of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), in a briefing held shortly before the government's, said that after today's detailed judgment, reservations expressed by the army earlier "are proving to be true".

At the time the short order had been issued, the ISPR had said: "The due legal process seems to have been ignored including the constitution of a special court, denial of the fundamental right of self defence, undertaking individual specific proceedings and concluding the case in haste."

The ISPR chief said the verdict issued today — especially the words used in the written order — "transgresses humanity, religion, culture and any other values".

 

[ghazi52]

Judge not of sound mind, says attorney general on Musharraf treason verdict

December 19, 2019

Pakistan's Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan addressing a press conference following a special court verdict against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, in Islamabad on Tuesday. — AFP
Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan on Wednesday said that the sanity of the author of the detailed verdict in the Musharraf treason case is "questionable" and called for his trial and removal under Article 209 of the Constitution.

His remarks came hours after the contentious verdict authored by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth was released, calling for the "corpse" of former president retired Gen Pervez Musharraf to be "dragged to D-Chowk" and "hanged for 3 days".

Speaking to ARYNews, AG Khan said that the verdict was "unconstitutional, unethical, inhuman, and was given by an individual whose sanity is questionable".

"He must be tried under Article 209 and I will take appropriate measures for immediate action against him," he said.

"This is a judgment which I strongly condemn."

The attorney general said that the law provides for any person to be able to move a petition with the supreme judicial council and he intends on undertaking the requisite measures to put such a petition forward.

He remarked that the judgment was based "on personal enmity and vengeance".

AG Khan, in further criticism, said that the judgment had also "attacked the army" in mentioning the fact that army officials have taken an oath and that Musharraf's actions were against the oath.

"A person who acts against Islam, the law and the Constitution can never be allowed to remain a judge."

Science and technology minister Fawad Chaudhry said that former Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry's reinstatement had led to the appointment of judges whose "competency and knowledge raise serious questions".

"Those who are playing with fire seem oblivious to the fact they might end up getting burned," he wrote, adding, "there was no tact displayed in the choice of words".

"This is not a new development, rather a lesson from history that no one learns from history," said the minister.


Ch Fawad Hussain

✔@fawadchaudhry
https://twitter.com/fawadchaudhry/status/1207620133801336832

افتخار چوہدری کی بحالی کے نتیجے میں ایسے لوگ بھی جج بن گئے جن کی اھلیت اور علم پر سنجیدہ سوالات ہیں، آگ سے کھیلنے کے شوقین حضرات کو علم ہی نہیں کہ جل بھی سکتے ہیں، نہ لفظ چننے کی اھلیت نہ بیان کا سلیقہ ۔۔ یہ ریت نئ نہیں لیکن تاریخ کا سبق ہے کہ کوئ تاریخ سے سبق نہیں سیکھتا



11K
6:14 AM - Dec 19, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

4,908 people are talking about this





A special court in Islamabad on December 17 found Musharraf guilty of high treason and handed him a death sentence under Article 6 of the Constitution, marking the first time in Pakistan's history that a military chief has been declared guilty of high treason and handed a death sentence.

Soon after the verdict, the PTI-led government had termed the high treason trial against Musharraf “unfair”. “I will defend the law in the case but not any individual,” Attorney General Mansoor had said in a late-night joint press conference on the day of the verdict.

 

[Pakistan Space Agency]

Justice has been served.

Didn't this traitor order the massacre of children at Lal Masjid in broad daylight? What about the way he slaughtered Akbar Bugti (one of the founders of Pakistan) in a cave using chemical weapons?

 

[ghazi52]

Special court formed for Musharraf treason trial 'unconstitutional', rules LHC

January 13, 2020

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 on Monday declared the formation of a special court — which heard the treason case against former dictator Pervez Musharraf and handed him a death sentence after finding him guilty of treason — as "unconstitutional".

The LHC bench, which was hearing Musharraf's petitions against the verdict, also ruled that the treason case against the former president was not prepared in accordance with the law. A short order of the high court will be released shortly.

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

Musharraf was sentenced to death by a special court in Islamabad on December 17, 2019, six years after the trial started. The case was filed by the PML-N government against Musharraf for suspending the Constitution on November 3, 2007, when he imposed emergency in the country.

According to both the federal government and Musharraf's lawyer, after the high court's ruling, the verdict issued by the special court stands voids.

In his petitions following the damning verdict, 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.

The former military chief is currently in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. He was admitted to a hospital following deterioration of his health last month.


Arguments in court

As the court resumed hearing Musharraf's pleas on Monday morning, 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.

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.