ISLAMABAD:
The Special Court hearing the high treason case on Friday reserved the
decision on the accused Pervez Musharraf’s plea seeking copies of the
inquiry and investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency
(FIA) regarding the action taken on November 3, 2007.
A three-member Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, resumed hearing in the high treason case against former military dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharaf for imposing the emergency rule in the country on November 3, 2007.
Continuing his arguments in rebuttal to the prosecution, Barrister Farogh Naseem, counsel for Pervez Musharraf, questioned as to whether the court and prosecution did not want that the instant trial should be conducted in a fair manner, adding that in order to ensure a fair trial, all the material including inquiry and investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency had to be provided to the accused so that he could plead his case effectively.
The learned counsel contended that if all this material was not provided to the accused, then the trial could be restarted. He further submitted that the investigation report of FIA does not fall in the ambit of the Official Secrets Act that could be concealed from the defence.
At this, Dr Tariq Hassan from the prosecution side told the court that the investigation report of FIA does fall in the ambit of the Official Secrets Act and that was why it was being kept secret.
Justice Faisal Arab, however, observed that if the investigation report was secret, it would not have been released to the media.Farogh Naseem further contended that he was not asking the investigation report of FIA only but also seeking the whole record pertaining to the instant case, adding that without these, there would not be a fair trial.
He requested the court to issue directives for providing all the record pertaining to the case to the accused so that he could plead the case in an effective manner.Meanwhile, the court reserved the decision on the application and adjourned the hearing till April 28. The court ruled that it would take up other two applications, filed by the accused including seeking the trial of other persons under Article 6 of the Constitution who advised the accused to impose the emergency rule on November 3, 2007.
A three-member Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, resumed hearing in the high treason case against former military dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharaf for imposing the emergency rule in the country on November 3, 2007.
Continuing his arguments in rebuttal to the prosecution, Barrister Farogh Naseem, counsel for Pervez Musharraf, questioned as to whether the court and prosecution did not want that the instant trial should be conducted in a fair manner, adding that in order to ensure a fair trial, all the material including inquiry and investigation report of the Federal Investigation Agency had to be provided to the accused so that he could plead his case effectively.
The learned counsel contended that if all this material was not provided to the accused, then the trial could be restarted. He further submitted that the investigation report of FIA does not fall in the ambit of the Official Secrets Act that could be concealed from the defence.
At this, Dr Tariq Hassan from the prosecution side told the court that the investigation report of FIA does fall in the ambit of the Official Secrets Act and that was why it was being kept secret.
Justice Faisal Arab, however, observed that if the investigation report was secret, it would not have been released to the media.Farogh Naseem further contended that he was not asking the investigation report of FIA only but also seeking the whole record pertaining to the instant case, adding that without these, there would not be a fair trial.
He requested the court to issue directives for providing all the record pertaining to the case to the accused so that he could plead the case in an effective manner.Meanwhile, the court reserved the decision on the application and adjourned the hearing till April 28. The court ruled that it would take up other two applications, filed by the accused including seeking the trial of other persons under Article 6 of the Constitution who advised the accused to impose the emergency rule on November 3, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment