Interior minister approved action against Musharraf, court told

ISLAMABAD: Interior Secretary Shahid Khan on Wednesday told the Special Court trying former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf for treason that the prime minister did not approve the complaint against Musharraf but the interior minister did.

A three-member bench of the court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, heard the case. Defence counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem started cross examination of the interior secretary and the complainant Shahid Khan. The counsel asked the secretary who gave the approval to take action or lodge the complaint against Musharraf. He also questioned was the PM’s statement recorded in the case, was the Law and Justice Ministry consulted, and who drafted the complaint against Musharraf?

Shahid Khan said the interior minister approved action against Musharraf after receiving the investigation report from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in the case. However, the PM and federal cabinet did not give approval of action against the former president under Article-6, he added.

Shahid Khan said, “No statement of the prime minister was recorded in the case.” Before lodging the complaint against Musharraf, the Law Ministry was consulted several times in the light of the FIA investigation report and then the decision was taken to register the complaint under Article-6.

He said although several drafts were prepared to lodge the complaint against Musharraf but he himself drafted the final complaint.Farogh Naseem said the complaint was registered against Musharraf based on malicious intent. The special court adjourned the hearing till Thursday.

Special Court rejects Musharraf plea, seeking documents on 2007 emergency

ISLAMABAD: The special court conducting the treason trial of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf dismissed his plea seeking documents pertaining to the November 2007 emergency.

Special court registrar Abdul Ghani Soomro read out the detailed verdict which was earlier been reserved.

Rejecting the plea, the court ruled that though it was right of the accused to seek evidence, Musharraf’s plea was premature.

The court said that the accused himself could get the verified copies of the documents from the departments concerned. The court will consider the accused application during the course of hearing if he needed evidence.

The special court said the documents were public property.

Court summons Musharraf on July 1 in Ghazi murder case

ISLAMABAD: A local court in Islamabad resumed hearing the murder case of former prayer leader of Lal Masjid, Abdul Rasheed Ghazi and rejected the exemption plea filed by the accused General (retd) Pervez Musharraf from today’s hearing and summoned him on July 1, Geo News reported on Thursday.

The court had summoned former president and accused in the case in today’s hearing and had granted exemption in the last hearing. However, Musharraf did not appear in today’s hearing as well, instead two of his guarantors appeared before the court.

The court dismissed Musharraf’s exemption plea for today and summoned him on July 1.

The counsel of Musharraf, Major (retd) Akhtar Shah apprised the court that doctors treating his client have strictly forbidden him from traveling, however, if adequate security arrangements are made, he will reach the court by availing the next flight to Islamabad.

The counsel also presented Musharraf’s medical report in the court on which the prosecutor and applicant’s lawyer raised objections.

While raising objections, the applicant’s lawyer Abdul Haq Malik termed the report as a mere piece of paper and said that the report didn’t include the details of Musharraf’s hospital and the medicines he was using.

The court, later, rejected the exemption plea filed by Musharraf’s lawyer and ordered him to appear in the court by any means.

Earlier, Judge Wajid Ali had already rejected Musharraf’s petition seeking permanent exemption in the Ghazi murder case during the last hearing.

Court bars Lucman’s appearance on any channel

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Wednesday directed the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to ensure that “Mubashir Lucman shall not be allowed to conduct any programme on any TV channel till the final decision of the instant writ petition”.

Justice Siddiqui noted, “If any channel is found accommodating him (Lucman), strict action in accordance with law may be taken against that channel.”

The IHC bench was hearing a civil miscellaneous application of the Shohada Foundation of Pakistan Trust (SFPT) through its Trustee Ihtesham Ahmad against the ARY television channel and its anchor Mubashir Lucman for airing contemptuous programmes against the superior judiciary.

The IHC bench noted in its order, “Let secretary Ministry of Information, Islamabad, and chairman Pemra be directed to appear in person to explain as to whether there exists any code of conduct for the electronic media and anchorpersons who are found ridiculing the institutions of the country like the judiciary, the Army and other sensitive institutions and how many complaints have been filed against such persons and TV channels and what action has been taken so far?”

The court order further said, “It is a matter of great concern that Mr Mubashir Lucman, the anchorperson conducting a programme with the name of ‘Khara Sach’ on ARY, has been found crossing all limits of decency, morality and respect for the institutions and limits prescribed by the organic law of the country. His conduct is resulting in spreading hatred against the institution of the judiciary, which is totally uncalled for, but surprisingly, neither the government nor Pemra has taken any action against him.”

After issuing the above order, Justice Siddiqui adjourned the hearing till the last week of June.The petitioner has nominated the Federation through the secretary Ministry of Information, secretary Ministry of Interior, chairman Pemra and Mubashir Lucman, anchor ARY TV channel, as respondents.

The petitioner through his counsel Kalsoom Akhtar advocate contended before the court that that some anchorpersons, particularly Mubashir Lucman, are conducting such programmes which are prejudicial to the integrity, honour, respect and independence of the superior judiciary.

The petitioner referred to an order of the IHC that Pemra could not implement. The order was related to the same matter that reads, “Since, it appears to be the genuine apprehension of the petitioner and ordinary citizens of the country that a defamatory campaign has been launched against the honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan and other judges of the Supreme Court and high courts and there is every likelihood that in order to further scandalise the courts and create sensation, the interested persons are bent upon fabricating material and using the electronic media as a tool in spreading the same so that they may achieve their nefarious designs. Mr Ansar Abbasi, renowned journalist, through his columns dated October 6 and 7, 2012, published in The News had also indicated about the plot. Therefore, Pemra is directed to ensure that no programme containing un-commendable, malicious and wicked material is telecast by any of the channels in which a person of the honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan and other honourable judges of the superior courts are criticised, ridiculed and defamed. This court is conscious of the fact that none is above the law and if there are allegations of misconduct against any judge of the superior courts interested persons may opt for the mechanism provided under article 209 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and any device alien to organic law of the country can be termed as nothing but an attempt to abrogate the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

The petitioner contended that Pemra had taken no substantial steps to implement the said order of this honourable court and Mubashir Lucman on the ARY TV channel continuing extending the campaign against the former chief justice (retd) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and judges of the Supreme Court, particularly Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, in a clandestine manner.

The petitioner said Lucman has crossed all the ethical limits of journalism and conducts contemptuous and defamatory programmes wickedly against the honourable judges of the Supreme Court. He ridicules the judges and noble citizens showing their pictures, such as Baba ji etc. Thus he does not follow and practice the norms of journalism and blackmails the noble and respectable professionals and judges.

The petitioner said Mubashir is the same anchor whose real face was exposed along with Mehr Bukhari to the whole world while conducting a planted interview.The petitioner prayed to the court that chairman Pemra may be directed to produce before the court the recorded programmes on CDs titled ‘Khara Sach’ conducted by him on May 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 2014 and some other dates thereafter up to May 31, 2014.The petitioner further prayed that Lucman may be dealt with in accordance with the law and be restrained from conducting programmes being in excess of his right to freedom of speech.

Blasphemy: Court summons owners of over 20 channels

 

SARGODHA: A sessions court here on Monday summoned the owners of 20 TV channels and Federal Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed on June 4 (tomorrow) over the broadcasting of material blasphemous to the Ahle Bait.
Muhammad Ilyaz Qadri of village 71 Shumali had filed an application with the additional district and sessions judge against the owners of 20 TV channels, including ARY, Express, Dunya, Samaa TV, Geo News and Dawn News, contending that these channels had been airing religiously controversial programmes for some time. Meanwhile, Geo News also aired a controversial morning show over which it apologised to people, but none of the other channels apologised and brazenly aired vulgar and religiously controversial programmes.

Qadri contended that the channels, now making a hue and cry over a controversial broadcast in the Geo morning show, had themselves aired similar objectionable programmes. Meanwhile, the Imambargah Dur-e-Abbas administrator has filed an application with the sessions court for registration of cases against five TV channels — ARY, Express, Dunya, Samaa and Ab Tak — contending that Geo TV had apologised over the blasphemous broadcast but these channels neither apologised nor were they proceeded against. The court summoned the owners on June 5 (tomorrow).

Bahawalpur correspondent adds: Additional Sessions Judge Bahawalpur Haider Amin Monday issued direction to PS Baghdadul Jadeed police for initiating proceedings against anchorperson Mubashir Lucman and chief executive officers (CEOs) of Express News channel Sultan Lakhani, Dunya TV Mian Aamer Mehmood, ARY, Samaa TV and Ab Tak News for repeatedly airing blasphemous programme on their channels.

The Judge passed the direction while hearing the 22-A petition filed by lawyer Syed Lal Shah in which the petitioner requested action against the above-mentioned CEOs and the anchorperson who had repeatedly aired the blasphemous programme regarding Ahle Bait just in their professional rivalry and their this act had harmed sentiments of the Muslims.

The petition was filed on May 28th and the judge conducted the hearing on June 2 and announced the direction for the action by PS Baghdadul Jadeed. The detailed judgment will be released on Tuesday (today). After the direction former general secretary district bar association Munawar Hussain Bukhari told The News that Geo News apologized on the issue but the above-mentioned channels and Mubashir Lucman had deliberately repeatedly aired the blasphemous programme.

He said the petitioner first requested the PS Baghdadul Jadeed for the case against the CEOs, but on refusal by the police, the petitioner filed the 22-A plea with the District and Sessions Judge Bahawalpur Muhammad Rasheed Qamar, who forwarded the plea to additional sessions judge Haider Amin. He said Tuesday (today) they would approach the relevant police station for the registration of FIR.

Court issues non-bailable arrest warrants for Gilani, Fahim

KARACHI: Federal Anti-Corruption Court has issued non-bailable arrest warrants for former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and former minister for commerce Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Geo News reported on Monday.

The court issued non-bailable arrest warrants for Gilani and Fahim after Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) declared both Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leaders fugitive in seven Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) cases.

The cases are related to the approval and disbursement of fraudulent trade subsidies by Gilani, Fahim and officials of the TDAP.

Three days back, the anti-corruption court had also issued non-bailable arrest warrants for Gilani and Amin Faheem.

The warrants against the two were issued in a case relating to financial irregularities in the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP).

The case in this regard had been registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) when Amin Fahim was Commerce Minister.

Gilani and Fahim had been accused of involvement in Rs7 billion financial scam in TDAP. Muhammad Firdous, the key accused, turned approver against the former prime minister and former federal minister.

The court had previously issued three notices to Gilani and Fahim, requiring them to appear before it. The notices were ignored after which bailable arrest warrants were issued against both the leaders. On Thursday, however, the court issued non-bailable arrest warrants and adjourned the hearing till June 17.

Invisible govt least cares about court orders: Hamid Mir

 

ISLAMABAD: Senior anchorperson of Geo Hamid Mir on Friday said that verdicts and orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are nothing for the invisible forces that are governing the country.
Addressing an event organised by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) at the National Press Club in connection with the ‘Hamid Mir Week’, the Geo anchor said that there are two types of governments that are ruling the country at the same time; one is the government that is visible while the other one is invisible. He said the invisible government wants that it should not be named even if it attacks you. If you name it, you will have to apologise. The invisible government considers itself above the law and the SC orders are not being implemented on it.

Speaking to a large number of audience through a video few black sheep in the media were engaged in defaming journalism.However, the senior journalist, who narrowly survived when attacked by unknown assailants last month in Karachi, told the media persons: “You are being tested even today and your presence here in large numbers shows that bid to split journalists has failed. On 19 April the attack was not only on Hamid Mir but was on the freedom of media. Unity is a must.”

Hamid Mir said that journalists are being harassed and bullied but they will remain united and in no way be deterred from doing their job as they had stood their ground in the past. He said that some unscrupulous people are fanning hatred using the name of religion.

Hamid Mir maintained that the government had not been able to ensure implementation of the Supreme Court order with regard to the Geo and Jang.The ace anchorperson lamented that the government was building the metro bus and motorways but was unable to get implemented the apex court decision on Geo and Jang.

Later, a rally, comprising mostly of media persons was staged from the National Press Club to the Jang Plaza here as a mark of solidarity with Geo and Jang Group’Senior journalists expressed concern over the prevailing situation with regards to the media and feared a campaign had been launched against the free media.

They contended that if the government or the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had not shut down Geo then who had done so, saying it was a matter of grave concern.

Senior journalists while speaking to the rally, charged that the Pemra had not acted with neutrality on Geo issue and they made it clear that Geo would not be allowed to be shut down come what may.

About the unfortunate incidents of torching of Jang van and copies of ‘The News’ and Daily Jang, PFUJ President Afzal Butt pointed out that by resorting to these actions, sacrilege of the Holy Quran verses, Ahadees and sacred names was being committed.

He challenged those, who had issued fatwa against Geo, to now do the same against those, who were setting ablaze copies of newspapers and thus indulging in sacrilege of the divine and sacred content.

Afzal Butt urged owners of media houses to ensure implementation of labour laws and lamented the media houses in Pakistan were like ‘labour camps’.He said if the Jang Group was ready to give all rights to its workers, then a massive campaign would be launched from Khyber to Karachi in support of it.

Noted media persons called on the government to play its mediatory role to resolve the Geo and Jang issue. They also emphasised for reconstitution of the Pemra. They warned against any action against the Jang Group and said that it would render some 50,000 media workers jobless, which they would never let happen.

Speakers said that the electronic media was just a ten-year-old baby and one could not expect it to behave like a 50-year-old mature person. The rally was informed that the PFUJ had formed a committee of senior journalists to thrash out code of conduct, consulting the stakeholders.

They pointed out that in the past, mistakes were made, but no one asked about it, and today, there was a wish to close down a television channel (Geo).Those who spoke on the occasion, included senior journalist Mazhar Abbas, Akbarfarosh Union President Tikka Khan, National Press Club President Shaharyar Khan and anchorperson Kashif Abbasi.

Still blocked Geo to sue Pemra for contempt of court

 

ISLAMABAD: Geo television has decided to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court again by moving a contempt of court petition against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) after the apex court’s orders to restore the Geo transmission were completely ignored and the government’s ‘instructions’ on this count simply put into dustbin by the Pemra. As a result, Geo is still blacked out across the country.
After the horrible attack on Pakistan’s star journalist and Geo News senior anchorperson Hamid Mir on April 19 in Karachi, certain forces started getting the transmission of Geo News closed or shifting the channel to last numbers on cable networks. Within a few days, Geo News and other channels of the Geo family were either put off air or were thrown on the last numbers on cable networks in 70% areas of Pakistan.

Viewers could not watch their favourite channel on the last numbers because of limited channel carrying capacity of their TV sets or bad signal quality at those numbers. Geo continuously informed Pemra about the closure or obstruction in its transmission but the authority never took any action and remained mysteriously silent though it was its fundamental duty to resolve the complaints from any channel facing closure.

However, later the hidden forces intensified their action against the Geo News and all other channels of Geo family were put off air in more than 95% areas of Pakistan and the organisation itself announced that channels were completely closed in Pakistan. After failing to get any relief from Pemra even after filing five complaints, Geo moved the Supreme Court which in its judgment clearly ordered the authority to get the Geo News and all Geo channels restored immediately and shifted to their original positions.

After the Supreme Court had started its proceedings, the government also asked the Pemra to try to get Geo restored. The Pemra issued a letter to all the cable operators to restore all the Geo channels to their original positions.

However, Pemra’s action remained confined to issuing this letter and also taking action against the powerful cable operators at some places but the result was almost zero. The reason was backing of cable operators by some hidden forces and incompetence and insincerity of Pemra officials at many places. All this resulted in complete disregard of the Supreme Court’s May 26 judgment, which was not implemented anywhere asGeo is still facing a countrywide blackout and also terrible conspiracies against it and its staff on a daily basis.

Geo is the most popular channel of Pakistan known for open debates and independent and impartial analysis and comments. Geo is also known for providing the latest information and exclusive news to its tens of millions of viewers across Pakistan and many parts of the world.

Not only Geo is completely off in Pakistan and Pemra is unable to restore Geo and its channels and thus implement the clear judgment of the Supreme Court but the staff of Geo is also working under constant threats. Most interestingly, the so-called democratic provincial governments are so far unable to provide protection to Pakistan’s largest media house and its journalists and workers.

Judges detention case: Court orders Musharraf to appear on June 13

ISLAMABAD: While granting exemption from today’s hearing, an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Islamabad has summoned former president Pervez Musharraf on June 13 in the judges detention case, Geo News reported on Friday.

ATC Judge Atiqur Rehman had summoned Musharraf in today’s hearing, however, his lawyer furnished an application with the judge seeking an exemption for his client from today’s court appearance that was accepted by the judge. However, the judge ordered him to appear on June 13.

Musharraf’s lawyer has also filed an application for permanent exemption for his client. The defense counsel was of the view that the court had granted exemption after the indictment.

On the other hand, the prosecutor has requested for more time to provide the relevant documents to Musharraf’s defense lawyers in treason case. The court accepted the request and granted time till June 3 and adjourned the hearing.

The lawyers of the former president had sought the list of witnesses and complete record of Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) inquiry in the treason case.

It may be mentioned here that the court had warned of action against the guarantors of Pervez Musharraf if he failed to appear before the court today.

Supreme Court to resume Geo petition hearing

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan will resume hearing over a petition filed by the Independent Media Corporation (IMC) on behalf of Geo Network against the negative propaganda by other TV channels and for resumption of its transmission on cable networks.

On Thursday, a three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Mushir Alam heard the petition.

During the course of hearing Justice Khawaja remarked: “We are very professional and we will deal with it professionally and we do know what our values are, thanks to Allah Almighty,”

He said that everyone should know that they would not let anyone cause harm to the dignity of the Supreme Court.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja refused to recuse himself from the bench hearing the Geo TV case saying a judge took the decision to disassociate himself in accordance with the Constitution.

He said that it was the conscience of the judge himself which must determine his decision whether to sit on a bench or not.

Justice Khawaja questioned the regulatory body about its presence during propaganda against the judiciary. He asked where was Pemra when propaganda was aired against the judiciary.

Supreme Court to resume Geo petition hearing

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan will resume hearing over a petition filed by the Independent Media Corporation (IMC) on behalf of Geo Network against the negative propaganda by other TV channels and for resumption of its transmission on cable networks.

On Thursday, a three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja and comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Mushir Alam heard the petition.

During the course of hearing Justice Khawaja remarked: “We are very professional and we will deal with it professionally and we do know what our values are, thanks to Allah Almighty,”

He said that everyone should know that they would not let anyone cause harm to the dignity of the Supreme Court.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja refused to recuse himself from the bench hearing the Geo TV case saying a judge took the decision to disassociate himself in accordance with the Constitution.

He said that it was the conscience of the judge himself which must determine his decision whether to sit on a bench or not.

Justice Khawaja questioned the regulatory body about its presence during propaganda against the judiciary. He asked where was Pemra when propaganda was aired against the judiciary.

Egyptian court jails 102 Brotherhood supporters for 10 years

CAIRO: An Egyptian criminal court has sentenced 102 defendants it describes as Muslim Brotherhood supporters to 10 years in prison each on charges of violent rioting in a Cairo neighborhood and possession of weapons.

Egypt´s state news agency said the Saturday ruling puts the defendants under police surveillance for a period of five years after the end of their prison sentences. Two other defendants were jailed for seven years in the case.

The ruling is linked to demonstrations staged to protest the overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi by the military in July.

Morsi´s ouster followed days of mass demonstrations demanding his resignation.

The prosecutors charged the defendants with gathering illegally with intent to inflict material and moral harm to others and public property, which led to one death. (AP)

Treason case: Court reserves verdict on FIA report plea until May 8

ISLAMABAD: The Special Court, hearing high treason case against former President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, reserved its verdict over the Defence Counsel's demand for provision of inquiry report of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) until May 8, Geo News reported.

The Special Court headed by Justice Faisal Arab comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali resumed hearing of the case.

During the course of proceedings, counsel for Pervez Musharraf, Barrister Farogh Nasim withdrew the two petitions relating to section 6-A of the Special Court Act-1976. He submitted that section 6-A of Special Court Act-1976 has expired and his petitions in this regard may kindly be returned and added he would be presenting his reservations verbally.

At his moment, prosecutor Akram Sheikh on objection said that the defence counsel on the one hand was taking back the petitions and on the other continuing his arguments.

Barrister Farogh Nasim prayed to the court not to further proceed in the case until the ruling on the handing over to him a copy of the FIA report announced. He said he would finalize his future strategy in the light of the court’s decision and hastily added that it should not be perceived that the trial proceeding being delayed because of him. The court fixing the date for the announcement of ruling over FIA report plea adjourn the hearing, he submitted.

Later, the court approved the withdrawal of petitions that stated the law under which the accused indicted was superseded by 1981 Ordinance.

The court adjourned further hearing of the case until May 8.

Special court reserves judgment on Musharraf’s plea seeking FIA inquiry report

 

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.

Treason case: Court reserves order on providing FIA report to accused

ISLAMABAD: The Special Court on Friday resumed hearing the petitions seeking treason case against former president General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf and reserved the order on providing the investigative report of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to the accused, Geo News reported.

The three-judge bench headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Syeda Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali Khan heard the case today.

During today’s hearing, lawyer of former president Farogh Nasim argued that there is an official secret act in the country. Tariq Hassan said that he is not claiming that the investigative report is secret under the official secret act.

Justice Faisal Arab remarked that had it been a secret, the report would not have broadcasted on the media.

Barrister Farogh Nasim said demanded that not only the FIA report should be handed over to him, but all the relevant documents should also be provided.

He, then, challenged the complete process of the proceedings under Article 6 and questioned that how the inquiry was initiated, who ordered the inquiry and what were the findings of the investigation.

The court, later, saved the order on providing the FIA report to the accused and adjourned the hearing till April 28.

On Thursday, Barrister Farogh Nasim had requested the court to order government to provide him with the FIA report. He had told the court that he will submit his reply on prosecutor Akram Sheikh’s arguments and requested the court to use its authority and order the government to provide him the investigative report submitted by the FIA.

Prosecutor Akram Sheikh, however, denied to hand over the investigative report to the accused party.

Barrister Farogh Nasim argued that the Special Court Act is not comprehensive and that is why the Supreme Court had ordered for criminal proceedings in the case.

On March 31, Musharraf was formally charged for subverting the Constitution by imposing emergency on November 3, 2007. Musharraf had rejected all the charges levelled against him.

Only Musharraf proclaimed emergency, special court told

 

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.

Musharraf court has already settled abettors issue

ISLAMABAD: In order to complicate the high treason case, ex-president Pervez Musharraf’s defense lawyers have demanded the trial of all those involved in the November 3, 2007 step, but they have forgotten the fact that the Special Court has already settled the issue in its verdict of March 7, 2014.

Musharraf’s counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem presented the notification of declaring emergency on November 3, 2007 before the court to prove that Musharraf had not acted alone while imposing emergency.

Talking to The News, Musharraf’s defense counsel Faisal Hussain Chaudhry said para 50 of the Special Court’s judgment implied only when Musharraf was not indicted but now when he was indicted then under Section 6(g) of Criminal Law (special court) Act 1976 all accused and co-accused had to be tried jointly and this was mandatory.

He said the Constitution does not allow selective prosecution and also provides for fair trial under Article 10-A.In its judgment of March 07, 2014 the Special Court says: “The material that is before us at this stage is only limited to the extent that the accused consulted with certain functionaries of the state, both civil and military, before the issuance of proclamation of emergency; therefore the involvement of any other person would depend on the evidence which would come on the record. Further, the decision if recorded on submissions of pertaining to being singled out and the retrospective effect of Article 6 of the Constitution would amount to deciding the case at a pre-mature stage; hence we intend not to record findings thereon at this stage of the proceedings”.

According to Naseem the situation had been reviewed in meetings with the prime minister, governors of all the four provinces, chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of the army staff and corps commanders and emergency was proclaimed in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings.

The same point was raised by Musharraf’s defense lawyer Anwar Mansoor Khan in response to which the court gave this verdict.In his argue Mr. Khan said: “The proclamation of emergency issued on November 03, 2007 was not an act of the accused alone but an outcome of a consultative process that was carried out by the accused in consultation with the prime minister, governors of all the four provinces, chairman joint chief of staff committee, chief of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of Pakistan Army yet only the accused had been proceeded against under Article 6 of the Constitution.”

It was contended that the accused felt that he had been singled out and the motivating factor behind invoking the provision of Article 6 of the Constitution was not to seek punishment of all those who might be found guilty at the end of the trial, but behind the proceedings was animosity and hatred that existed between the accused on the one hand and the prime minister and former chief justice of Pakistan on the other hand and therefore the whole process was tainted with malice.

It was added that the amendment to the Constitution was made later in point of time to include the act alleged against the accused committed earlier in time; therefore, it has no retrospective effect”. In response to Khan’s argument, the head of government’s prosecution team Akram Sheikh while rebutting the contention said: “A statement was made by the attorney general before the Supreme Court that the matter was investigated and the material for prosecution was available only against the accused and no other person. Due to this reason, the complaint was filed only against him.”

It was stated that there could be many persons involved in the crime but only those could be proceeded against whom sufficient evidence was available to connect them with the commission of an offence and the same was the case with the accused.

SC seeks report on court martial of army officers

 

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday sought a report from the Ministry of Defence on the proceedings being initiated against military officers under the Army Act for their involvement in enforced disappearances.
The court summoned by May 6 the DNA test report from the Punjab government forensic laboratory of the bodies recovered from the Khuzdar mass grave.Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked: “Why is a long period of time being spent on the DNA tests of the bodies? Maintaining law and order in the province is the legal and constitutional obligation of the state. The occurrence of such incidents daily is alarming and these cannot be overlooked. We cannot see the chaos in Balochistan. The elements involved in enforced disappearances should be punished as per the law.”

Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali remarked: “The recovery of bodies from mass graves is a matter of grave concern. The problems will not be solved unless the rule of law and Constitution prevails in the country. Balochistan is burning and no one cares for it.”

A two-member SC bench, led by Justice Nasirul Mulk, took up the Balochistan violence case for hearing on Tuesday.The court was told that the government had decided to try under the Army Act the FC and army officers found involved in enforced disappearances in Balochistan.

The court inquired what action had been taken so far. “Details in this regard be presented before us,” the court remarked.The report on the recovery of bodies from mass graves in Khuzdar was presented before the court wherein it was said that the DNA test could take four to five months as 7 to 8 weeks were required for DNA test of one body.

The court showed its annoyance and asked why such a long period was needed for the purpose. “Present the DNA test report by May 6 and the court be apprised about the army officers who are being tried under the Army Act.”The court adjourned the hearing till May 6.

Musharraf asks court to also try his associates

 

ISLAMABAD: Former military dictator Pervez Musharraf’s counsel Barrister Farogh Naseem on Tuesday requested the Special Court to also try the associates of his client for assisting him in declaring the state of emergency on November 3, 2007.
The three-member Special Court, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar, resumed hearing into the Federation’s complaint for initiating the treason case against Musharraf for abrogating the Constitution and declaring the state of emergency in the country on Nov 3, 2007.

Justice Faisal Arab told the defence counsel that the court could not open all the cases of abrogation of the Constitution since 1956, as its mandate was limited to hearing the instant case.

The remarks came when Musharraf’s defence counsel Dr. Farogh Naseem argued that in terms of international jurisprudence, there could be no selective prosecution of Musharraf and quoted Article 12(2) of the Constitution requiring a trial under Article 6 with effect from 23.3.1956.

Dr Naseem said the reference had been made in passing for the purposes of the main case and for the time being for the purpose of arguments on the application seeking the disclosure of FIA report Article 12(2) was not relevant and therefore this question should be kept open.

He also requested the courtto take up application (No. 12 of 2014) in which a request had been made for the disclosure and supply of copies of inquiries/investigation report of the FIA, which was the foundational basis of the complaint itself.

He said vide order dated March 7. 2014 the court had clearly held that as and when evidence on material was brought on record that the accused was aided, abetted and collaborated by others, it would decide the issue in that regard.

He said in order to bring such evidence on record, the first step was to require the prosecution to file the FIA report, which clearly contained a dissenting note by one Hussain Asghar that Musharraf alone should not be tried and that his aides and abettors should also be made co-accused.

The defense counsel contended that in the proclamation of emergency the prime minister, all governors and members of the military leadership were disclosed to be the consultees.He submitted that the proclamation of emergency was a public document, duly gazetted and published in the law reports, in view whereof, as per the Qanun-e-Shahadat a presumption of truth of contents of the said gazette was in the field. Therefore, he said the accused had sufficiently discharged the tactical or prima facie burden of proof and the ultimate or legal burden to disprove the same now rested upon the prosecution.

“In terms of the mandate of the court order of March 7, 2014, sufficient material was now on record for the court to pass orders implicating the co-accused,” Farogh Naseem said.The defense counsel further contended that there had been violation of Article 265 © of CrPC that relates to supply of documents to the accused. He cited Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case wherein it was stressed in the interest of justice.

Prosecutor Akram Sheikh however submitted that the law does not require him to disclose the FIA’s report and therefore he would not disclose the same to the accused unless otherwise directed by the court.

“I cannot hand a Kalashnikov and a hand grenade and your lordship has to order me in this regard and I will hand it over to the court”, Sheikh contended. He recalled that the court had ruled earlier that it will cross the bridge when it comes.

“So let things come at the proper stage as it is not a case of oral evidence but a case of documentary evidence,” Sheikh submitted adding, “let cross the bridge when it comes.”

He submitted that the court gave its verdict on March 7 on the trial of others involved in Nov 3 decision according to which if evidences were found against anyone in the records then the court would consider it.

He further recalled to the court that the copies of the complaint in the instant case had already been handed over to Anwar Mansoor Khan. He said the application was filed three-months earlier and the court had already decided it as well.

He further submitted that Article 265 © of CrPC as referred to by the defense counsel was not applicable in this case adding that Article 265 © of CrPC and section 5 of Special Court (Amendment) Act 1976 are different.

“Just throw the CrPC,” Sheikh contended. “Is it your argument that Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Court Act 1976 oust the application of Section 265 ©”, Justice Faisal Arab asked Akram Sheikh.

Yes, Sheikh replied.

He contended that under Section 5 of the Special Court Act, the federal government was obligated to provide only three documents which included details of the crime, complaint and list of witnesses.

He further said that as the special court was not a high court, it could not apply Section 561 of the military law to this case.

Akram Sheikh contended that the government was not obligated to present the joint investigation report (JIT) and the officer who gave the dissenting note was also a witness.

Akram Sheikh submitted that he would submit his reply overnight in the application and the learned defense counsel could cross-examine him then. Sheikh said that he will continue his arguments today (Wednesday).

During the hearing Akram Sheikh asked Farogh Naseem to give him his email address for sending his reply.When Farogh Naseem told Sheikh to send it to Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, his team member, Sheikh in a light tone replied that he was scared of Chaudhry Faisal.In response, Farogh Naseem told Sheikh that he could give him the email address of Rana Ejaz.

Meanwhile, the Special Court ruled that the decision on appointment of prosecutor in the instant case challenged by the defense counsel would be announced on April 18.Dr. Farogh Naseem pointed out that orders on an application pertaining to the disqualification of Akram Shaikh as prosecutor had been reserved for March 26, 2014 and the court observe Shaukat Aziz that before the evidence was to be recorded the application in respect of the prosecutor would be decided.

Justice Faisal Arab however observed that orders on the matter of appointment of prosecutor would be announced on Friday, April 18.The court adjourned the hearing till today (Wednesday).

Special Court resumes treason case hearing against Musharraf

ISLAMABAD: The Special Court has resumed the hearing of high treason case against former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf after the interval of two weeks on Tuesday, Geo News reported.

A three-member special court headed by Justice Faisal Arab and consisting of Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali Khan is hearing the case against the former dictator in the premises of Federal Shariat Court instead of National Liberary due to security concerns.

During today’s proceedings, Justice Faisal Arab said that Musharraf’s lawyer Anwar Mansoor Advocate had accused Prosecutor Akram Sheikh of being biased, and the verdict in that regard will be announced on April 18.

Earlier on March 31, the court had exempted Musharraf from personal appearance, saying that it could not restrict one’s free movement until the accused was arrested.

Also, the Special Court had indicted Pervez Musharraf on five counts of high treason, a charge that potentially carries death penalty.

The first charge was that Musharraf abrogated the Constitution by slapping emergency on November 3, 2007 and trampled fundamental human rights.

The second charge stated that he introduced illegal amendments to the Constitution between November 20 and December 14, 2007 which was an unconstitutional act.

The third charge was that he issued the PCO illegally, forced the superior court judges to take oath under it and removed those who did not take oath.

The fourth charge was that the accused removed those judges who did not take oath under the PCO and put them under house arrest. The fifth charge related to the imposition of the November 3, 2007 emergency and holding the Constitution in abeyance.

The accused denied all the charges against him and pleaded not guilty.