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.

Musharraf’s associates flatly deny they are abettors

 

ISLAMABAD: No one from the 14 prime witnesses, including the then key governor, attorney general, important federal secretaries and senior staff members of the then president and prime minister, has endorsed Gen (retd) Musharraf’s claim made before the FIA inquiry team that his Nov 3, 2007 abrogation of the Constitution was the consequence of consultations with top military and civilian leaders.
A reading of the classified FIA inquiry report, which became the basis for the institution of the high treason case against Musharraf, rejected the involvement of the then prime minister, the cabinet or any other member of the government as abettors.

Two key witnesses, including the then Attorney General Malik Qayyum and Principal Secretary Law Justice (retd) Mian M Ajmal, however, suspected Sharifuddin Pirzada and Ahmad Raza Kasuri as the possible abettors.

Pirzada and Kasuri, who are presently defending Musharraf in the high treason case, are said to be the generally known advisers of Musharraf before the proclamation of emergency.The FIA team although was not allowed to go through the GHQ’s record, the then secretary cabinet, secretary to president (Musharraf), principal secretary law, interior secretary, etc, all categorically denied the involvement of the then prime minister, the cabinet or any government functionaries’ involvement in the preparation of the proclamation of emergency order.

Musharraf’s claim that the then PM Shaukat Aziz, the cabinet, the governors, military commanders, etc, were consulted by him before his extra-constitutional Nov 3rd Act, did not get any endorsement from even a single witness including his own secretary and the then Governor Lt Gen (retd) Khalid Maqbool.

The FIA report contained the statements of the then Attorney General Malik Qayum, Principal Secretary Law Justice (R) Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Secretary Cabinet Syed Masud Alam Rizvi, Secretary to the President Mohsin Hafeez, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Khalid Saeed, Secretary Interior Syed Kamal Shah, LHC Rawalpindi Bar President Tauseef Asif, Chief Commissioner Islamabad Sardar Hamid Khan, Joint Secretary Cabinet Amjad Mahmood, Assistant Registrar Supreme Court Naeem Ahmad Chugtai, Senior PS to Secretary Law Ghulam Rasool, Assistant Commissioner Islamabad Nadir Chattha, Ilaqa Magistrate Islamabad Khan Bahadur and Governor Punjab Lt Gen Khalid Maqbool.

The then Attorney General Malik Qayum in his statement said that he did not advise Musharraf to issue the Nov 3 extra-constitutional order. Qayum said that he did not even know about the promulgation of the emergency order. The then Attorney General, however, said that it was widely known that Musharraf was consulting Sharifuddin Pirzada during those days.

The then Principal Secretary Law Ministry Justice (R) Mian Muhammad Ajmad also said that Sharifuddin Pirzada, Ahmad Raza Kasuri and Malik Qayum were believed to be amongst the persons consulted by Musharraf.

He said that the Law Ministry had no role in the Nov 3 action but admitted that following the Nov 3 proclamation order the Ministry had issued notification for the seizure of the offices of judges of the Supreme Court.

The then Secretary Cabinet Masud Alam Rizvi told the FIA team that neither the Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz advised Musharraf nor the cabinet discussed the proclamation of emergency order of Nov 3, 2007.

He added that he had notified the Nov 3 extra-constitutional order of Musharraf without even the approval of the then prime minister.Former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in his press statement had already denied advising Musharraf to impose emergency.

Mohsin Hafeez, then Secretary to President Musharraf, told the FIA team that he had no knowledge of the proclamation order. He said he also did not know of any meeting held between Musharraf and others on the issue.

Khalid Saeed, the then Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, in his statement said that no meeting was held between Musharraf and Aziz before the proclamation of the order. He added that the PM Office had only received the Army Chief’s proclamation order.

The then Secretary Interior Syed Kamal Shah also said that he had no prior knowledge of the issuance of the Nov 3 order. He even denied having received the proclamation of emergency order. He also denied that he had any meeting with the then prime minister on the issue of proclamation of emergency order.

Lt Gen (R) Khalid Maqbool’s statement that he was never consulted by Musharraf for the Nov 3rd action is also part of the FIA report signed by all the three officers including Muhammad Khalid Qureshi, Hussain Asghar and Maqsood ul Haq.

Who can be the possible abettors in Musharraf’s crime?

 

ISLAMABAD: Four retired federal secretaries and many others can be involved in the Musharraf high treason case by the defence team for implementing the dictator’s November 3, 2007 unconstitutional order and are therefore vulnerable.
The FIA inquiry report into the matter did not find any abettor but talked of “implementers”.As Musharraf’s trial finally takes off after his indictment, which removed many hurdles and hiccups, Musharraf’s defence team will now focus on who did what on November 3, 2007 to complicate the case.

According to sources, though the FIA inquiry report into General Pervez Musharraf’s case under Article 6 of the Constitution did not find any abettor or corroborator on the civilian side, it did say that the then secretary to the president, cabinet secretary, interior secretary, law secretary and others were among the implementers of the unconstitutional order.

Regarding the military side, the FIA team investigating the matter was never allowed to enter the GHQ. The report established one fact that nothing was found from the Presidency, the Prime Minister’s Office, cabinet secretariat, the law ministry and other government offices to establish that they were involved in the preparation of the November 3 order, which was the basis for the abrogation of the Constitution and the unconstitutional and illegal removal of dozens of judges.

On the civilian side, all government officials interviewed as yet by the FIA team have revealed that they were not involved in the preparation of the order but had received it for implementation. The unconstitutional PCO was notified by the secretary cabinet, who was conveyed the said order through the-then secretary to the prime minister.

The-then secretary law and the-then interior secretary got the PCO implemented through the official machinery. Musharraf’s defence team is expected to get the “implementers” involved. However, it is yet to be seen if the VVIP accused would allow his legal team to get the record of the GHQ scanned with the hope that it might help to save his skin.

In his unconstitutional Proclamation of Emergency Order, Musharraf had stated that the situation had been reviewed in meetings with the prime minister, governors of all the four provinces, and with chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of the army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan Army, and emergency was proclaimed in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings.....”

Musharraf’s claim about his “consultation” with the civilian government has not been proved from any official record with the civilians. The FIA team wanted to see who in the GHQ and from amongst the-then military commanders had been consulted in preparation of the said order but it could not be done.

The Supreme Court, in its July 31, 2009 judgment, had found Musharraf making a wrong statement in his Proclamation of Emergency Order. The SC had ruled, “The statement made in Proclamation of Emergency that the situation had been reviewed in meetings with the prime minister, governors of all the four provinces, and with chairman, joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan Army, and emergency was proclaimed in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, was incorrect. The Proclamation of Emergency emanated from his person, which was apparent from the words ‘I, General Pervez Musharraf......’ used in it.”

According to the SC ruling, the actions of General Parvez Musharraf dated November 3, 2007 were the result of his apprehensions regarding the decision of Wajihuddin Ahmed’s case and his resultant disqualification to contest the election of president. Therefore, it could not be said that the said actions were taken for the welfare of the people. Clearly, the same were taken by him in his own interest and for illegal and unlawful personal gain of manoeuvring another term in office of president, therefore, the same were mala fide as well.