SC overrules SHC order, Musharraf to stay on ECL

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday overruled the Sindh High Court order to remove former President Pervez Musharraf's name from the Exit Control List (ECL) barring him from leaving the country.

The former president had moved the Sindh High Court to remove his name so he may travel freely. The High court ruled that Musharraf's name be removed albeit the court suspended the operation of its order for fifteen days during which time the government could appeal before the apex court.

In its appeal before the Supreme Court, the federal government maintained that Musharraf is the only accused in the treason case and there are other pending cases against him in courts, thus his name should not be removed from the ECL. The appeal stated that Musharraf should not be allowed to leave the country until cases against him are decided.

Following today's ruling, the former president's name will remain on the ECL.

SHC takes Musharraf’s name off ECL, allows 15 days for appeal

 

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Thursday struck down former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL), observing that mere pendency of civil or criminal cases against a citizen was no ground to deny him the fundamental right of travelling within or outside the country.
However, the court suspended the operation of judgment for 15 days observing that since the court order was self-executory, therefore the respondents, if they so desire, may file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

A division bench of the court headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar observed in his detailed judgment on the former president’s petition that it was the fundamental right of a citizen to travel abroad and the abridgement of that right be tested on the touchstone of guaranteed under Article 2-A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution.

The court observed that no reason was communicated to the petitioner as to why his name had been placed on the ECL whereas a plethora of judgments were available in which such type of actions were considered arbitrary, unjust and violative of fundamental rights.

The court observed that it was also a well-settled law that mere pendency of civil or criminal cases against a citizen was no ground to deny him the fundamental right of traveling within or outside Pakistan. And after granting bail by the competent court the custody is regulated by such court of law, it further observed.

“Merely on apprehension that the petitioner will not return to Pakistan is no ground for depriving him of exercising his fundamental right,” the court observed in judgment.“No plea was taken that the reasons were not assigned in the public interest rather we are of the view that in the cases of high treason the public interest at large is involved to know the reasons for prosecuting the accused of high treason,” the court observed.

Brushing aside the apprehension of Attorney General for Pakistan who argued that if Musharraf was allowed to leave the country he will not return like Husain Haqqani, the court observed that the courts of the country were not helpless even in past and there were various examples in which the apex court of the country passed orders to ensure the custody of accused persons so that they may be tried such as the cases of Sharukh Jatoi and Tauqir Sadiq etc.

The court observed that the attorney general although quoted the case of Husain Haqqani, he did not point out any efforts made by the federation to ensure his presence in the country.The court observed that the petitioner was also involved in four other criminal cases in which extradition would not be denied in any treaty with any foreign country.

“If in any case, the accused has absconded, the law is not helpless but a procedure to deal with such situation is already provided under the Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws,” the court observed.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s interim order for placement of Musharraf’s name on the ECL, the court observed that the order containing the direction for putting the name of General (R) Pervez Musharraf on the ECL was of an interim nature which was merged in the final order and it does not survive after the final adjudication.

The court observed that the Supreme Court did not extend or continue the placement of Musharraf’s name on the ECL may be for the reasons that the federal government had already placed his name on ECL prior to the court direction on April 5, 2013.

The court observed that it was a well-settled principle that once a final order was passed, all earlier interim orders merge into the final order and the interims orders cease to exist.Attorney General for Pakistan Salman Butt had earlier argued before the court that the government could not take the risk by allowing Musharraf, who is facing high treason charges, to travel abroad unless the Supreme Court’s order regarding embargo on its traveling outside the country was modified or vacated. The AGP submitted that high treason was a political crime and once Musharraf was allowed to travel abroad he could not be brought back due to relaxed extradition laws in the other countries on such crime. He said if Musharraf moved abroad high treason proceedings would come to a standstill for an indefinite period.

Musharraf’s counsel Farogh Naseem submitted that the Special Court had not placed any restriction on the petitioner’s traveling abroad and his client should be allowed to travel abroad on medical grounds as the federal law officer had not filed any rebuttal on the medical report of the petitioner in which it stated that the petitioner had fracture in the vertebra and recommended that either surgery be performed in Dubai, North America or in Europe.

He said the attorney general himself admitted that high treason was a political crime and thus mala fide on part of the government could not be ruled out. He submitted that equal treatment may be given to every citizen either he is a petitioner or any other person while deciding the cases pertaining to restriction on traveling abroad.

Musharraf through his attorney Brigadier (R) Akhtar Zamin submitted in the petition that the federal government imposed ban on his traveling abroad on April 5, 2013 without giving any justified reason for placement of his name on the ECL.

SHC orders removal of Musharraf's name from ECL

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday ordered the removal of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf´s name from the Exit Control List (ECL), however the court has suspended the operation of its order for 15 days.

During this 15 day period, the government may appeal before the Supreme Court against the order. If the government does not appeal in the stipulated time, Musharraf will be free to travel.

A two-judge bench of the SHC comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Shahnawaz Tariq delivered the verdict on the petition against the placement of Musharraf’s name on the ECL.

"The court has allowed our appeal and ordered to strike down Musharraf´s name from the Exit Control List. The order will be executed after 15 days," said Musharraf’s lawyer Farogh Naseem.

The delayed execution of the order "will give time to the government to appeal in a superior court if they so desire," he added.

The court had reserved its order on May 29 after the defending counsel Barrister Dr Farogh Naseem, Attorney General of Pakistan Salman Aslam Butt and advocate Maulvi Iqbal Haider, who became a party in the case in favour of keeping Musharraf’s name in the ECL had completed their arguments.

It may be mentioned that the federal government had opposed the petition of the former president and contended that his name had been placed in the ECL on the direction of the Supreme Court in high treason case and high court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter.

Musharraf, 70, flew to Karachi in April to undergo medical tests. He has said he wants the travel ban lifted so he can visit his sick mother in Dubai, but many in Pakistan see it as a ruse to flee the country and avoid the litany of criminal cases against him dating back to his 1999-2008 tenure.

Musharraf was indicted for treason in March over his imposition of emergency rule in 2007 -- a case seen as a test of civilian authority in a country long dominated by the military. He also faces several murder cases.

Musharraf can’t be allowed to go abroad, govt tells SHC

 

KARACHI: The federal government on Monday opposed the former president Pervez Musharraf’s petition in the Sindh High Court (SHC) for removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL).
Filing comments with the court on Musharraf’s petition against placement of his name on the ECL, a Ministry of Interior official, Amir Sohail, submitted that the petitioner was facing serious charges, including high treason and if a conviction was secured, he may get capital punishment.

He said the petitioner had been nominated in four different cases, which were sub judice. He said the nature of crimes leveled against the petitioner was very serious due to which he could not be allowed to leave the country.

He submitted that the name of the petitioner had been placed on the ECL on the direction of the Supreme Court in a high treason matter and the high court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the petition. He said the petition was liable to be dismissed at all costs.

Sohail submitted that the petitioner was accused of committing serious crimes, including the charge of high treason. In case, he said, the petitioner’s likely conviction in one or more cases on these serious charges entails capital punishment, the existence of incentive to abscond must obviously be greater.

He submitted that the petition was not maintainable in its present form, as the petitioner himself was available in the country but he chose to file a petition through an attorney, who could not depose the facts of the case.

He submitted that the petitioner had made several misstatements in the petition, concealed important facts and approached the court with unclean hands and, therefore, he was not entitled to any discretionary relief.

It was submitted that the federal government had offered to fly the petitioner’s ailing mother from the UAE back to Pakistan; however, the petitioner was not sincere in his request, and there was a great likelihood that in the garb of his request, the petitioner intends to flee Pakistan and frustrate the judicial process and the purpose of the law.

The hearing of the case has already been fixed for May 7 before the SHC. Musharraf, through his attorney Brigadier (retd) Akhtar Zamin, submitted in the petition that the federal government banned his traveling abroad on April 5, 2013 without giving any justified reason for placement of his name on the ECL.

The counsel pointed out that although the Supreme Court passed an interim order on April 8, 2013 for placement of the petitioner’s name on the ECL, the court, while disposing of the petitions against his client with regard to the high treason trial, said no condition of keeping the petitioner’s name on the ECL had been specified.

Move to shut down Geo challenged in SHC

 

KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, after hearing in detail a petition filed by the Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. to challenge the arbitrary manner in which the federal government acting through ministries of interior and defence has complained to Pemra seeking cancellation of Geo News licence issued notices to both the federal government and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) calling for their comments here on Wednesday.
In its detailed order, the division bench headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, issued notices to the federal government through the Ministry of Information and also to Pemra and has called for comments on Geo’s petition, fixing May 2 as the next date of hearing.

In its petition, the Jang Group had contended that all over the world, it is routine for victims’ families to express suspicions for the help of investigating agencies. In England, a non UK citizen Mohammad Al Fayed has been conducting more than a decade of court battles to prove that his son Dodi Al Fayed and Lady Diana were murdered by MI6 of the UK. On his request, various inquests have taken place and the media has routinely reported proceedings of the court. No one has questioned this allegation as damaging the respect of MI6.

In the petition, Geo Jang Group has contended that while on the one hand, the federal government got a judicial commission set up headed by Justice Anwer Zaheer Jamali to look into the allegations of Hamid Mir’s family, on the other hand, without waiting for the findings of the judicial commission, it has reportedly filed a complaint with Pemra to cancel the Geo News licence.

In the petition, Geo has contended that on April 19, April 20 and also on April 21, no official of Pemra or that of the Ministry of Defence, contacted them to express unhappiness over the transmission and then without any prior communication, all of a sudden, the minister of interior and minister of defence filed complaints with Pemra.

In the petition, it has also been contended that the haste and arbitrariness that has been shown by the federal government when filing the complaint, the petitioner expects no fair, transparent and impartial adjudication on merit by Pemra, which has to-date never decided against the government of the day.

It was also pointed out that despite the worst kind of defamation that was conducted against the superior judiciary of Pakistan, to-date Pemra has not cancelled a single broadcasting licence.

Food shortage evidently caused deaths in Thar: SHC CJ

KARACHI: The SHC took notice over the delay in the provision of food and relief supplies to Tharparkar and directed the Sindh chief secretary to make urgent arrangements to supply relief goods to the affected families.Hearing identical petitions regarding the government’s negligence in providing relief and health facilities to the drought-affected people of Thar, the SHC division bench headed by Chief Justice Maqbool Baqar expressed concern that despite the passage of three months since the calamity began, 22,758 families were still without food or relief supplies from the governmen

Alleged encroachment: SHC restrains seminary from constructing mosque on KU land

Legal director informed the bench that Mufti Iqbal Naqshbandi got the allotment unlawfully and then started illegal constructions. PHOTO: MOHAMAMD NOMAN/EXPRESS

KARACHI:  The Sindh High Court (SHC) restrained the administrator of a seminary from raising construction over a piece of 3,000-square-yard land located on the University of Karachi’s (KU) premises.

Headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, the bench further instructed the Gulistan-e-Jauhar SHO to take action, if approached by the varsity’s management, in this regard. The management had approached the high court against, what it called, the illegal encroachment upon its land and constructions on it. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff had named Mufti Iqbal Naqshbandi, the administrator of the Jamia Fareedia Moin-ul-Quran, director-general of the Karachi Development Authority and Gulistan-e-Jauhar SHO as defendants.
Asif Mukhtar, the KU legal director, had sought an injunction against the seminary’s administrator, his agents and employees, restraining them from interfering in the peaceful and undisputed possession of the suit property measuring 3,000 square yards, situated between the pillar No. UK-16 and UK-17 on the varsity’s premises.
The plaintiff alleged that the seminary’s management had unlawfully taken over the land which was allotted to the university back in 1954. However, the seminary management, in connivance with the Karachi Development Authority’s officials, has attempted to usurp the same.
The plaintiff asked the court to declare that the KDA has no authority to allot, sell or dispose of the varsity’s land to the seminary management since it has been in possession of KU for the last several decades.
The legal director informed the bench that first Mufti Iqbal Naqshbandi got the allotment to the land unlawfully and then started illegal constructions of a mosque.
The court was also pleaded to order removal of the construction material from the site and permanently restrain the defendants from raising any type of construction. The plaintiff also complained that a complaint was filed with the Gulistan-e-Jauhar police for taking legal action against the private defendant, but they refused to entertain the same.
Justice Munib Akhtar, after preliminary hearing, issued notices to the defendant seminary’s administrator, KDA director-general and Gulistan-e-Jauhar SHO for March 11 to file their replies. The bench also restrained the seminary administrator from raising any sort of constructions on the land in question till the next date of hearing.