ISLAMABAD: The prosecution in the high treason case on Wednesday told the Special Court that former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf in his personal capacity proclaimed the emergency rule on Nov 3, 2007 as no record pertaining to summary or advice was available at the Prime Minister’s House proving that former prime minister Shaukat Aziz had advised the president in this regard.
A three-member Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali, resumed hearing into the Federation’s appeal for initiating the treason trial against the former military dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf for subverting the Constitution on Nov 3, 2007.
Prosecutor Muhammad Akram Sheikh submitted his written reply on the defence application, seeking the trial of all the abettors under the treason charges and a copy of the investigation report conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
He contended that so far in the investigation conducted in the instant case, it was found that the accused Pervez Musharraf issued the order of emergency rule in his personal capacity, adding that it was the responsibility of the accused to provide evidence against the other officials mentioned in the order of emergency rule.
The learned prosecutor further submitted that the incumbent government was unaware of the advisers of the accused at the time of issuing the proclamation of emergency rule, adding that the accused could better tell the court as to who were his advisers.
Justice Faisal Arab asked the prosecutor if the accused wanted to have a glimpse of the investigation report conducted by the FIA for his defence, adding as to why the accused should be deprived of this right.
“Whether was it not necessary to provide the investigation report to the court and the accused as well?” Justice Faisal Arab further asked Akram Sheikh.Akram Sheikh replied that the court could summon the report but it could not be provided to the accused. He said that the accused could only seek a statement when produced as evidence against him.
The learned prosecutor submitted that the Ministry of Interior was a part of the government and, according to the Constitution; the interior secretary was the competent authority to file a complaint in the treason case. He further contended that under articles 9, 10 and 19, it was the responsibility of the state to initiate the trial against a person for violation of the Constitution.
He submitted that in the treason case, a person would be tried against whom solid evidence was found adding that everything was based on solid evidence. The learned prosecutor told the court that the accused could file an application with interior secretary telling the names of abettors and requesting for taking action against them and placing their names in the list of the accused.
He further said that the defence counsel had asked for the statement of one of the members of FIA team and the said member would also be produced as evidence, hence in such a situation, a copy of the investigation report could not be provided yet.
He pleaded that defence applications seeking the trial of the abettors in the matter was aimed at diverting the attention of the court from the instant case, hence it should be dismissed.Meanwhile, Farogh Naseem, counsel for Pervez Musharraf, sought time till April 24 saying that he had not yet read all the material regarding the case while some books on international laws were lying in his office in Karachi. Similarly, he said that as he got the reply of the prosecution late, hence he could not made preparation for his arguments.
At this, the court accepted his plea and adjourned the hearing till April 24, ruling that the hearing would be held on daily basis from April 24.The court will also announce on April 18 (tomorrow) verdict on the defence application challenging the appointment of Akram Sheikh as prosecutor in the treason case.
No comments:
Post a Comment