ISLAMABAD:
The federal government on Saturday filed a petition in the Supreme Court
on Saturday urging that former president General (retd) Pervez
Musharraf should be restrained from going abroad.
The federal government, challenged the order of the Sindh High Court (SHC) striking down the name of former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf from the Exit Control List (ECL).
In this regard, the apex court constituted a two-member bench to take up the petition.
The government filed leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the learned SHC of June 12, 2014, ordering the removal of the name of Pervez Musharraf from the ECL.
The federation prayed to the apex court to set aside the SHC judgment in the interest of justice.
It further prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition, the impugned judgment might be suspended and the name of the respondent (Pervez Musharraf) might continue to remain on the ECL and he might be restrained from going abroad without the permission of this court.
A two-member SHC bench on June 12, 2014 struck down the name of Pervez Musharraf from the ECL observing that mere pendency of civil and criminal cases against a citizen was no ground to deny him the fundamental right of travelling within or outside the country.
The court, however, had suspended the operation of the judgment for 15 days observing that since the court order was self-executory, therefore the respondents, if they so desired, might file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
In its appeal, the federal government, however, contended that the impugned judgment was void, without jurisdiction, against the facts and law and the Constitution and the same was liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
It further submitted that the SHC lacked the territorial jurisdiction for the reasons and facts narrated herein above. The impugned judgment was therefore, without jurisdiction and the same was liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
The federation recalled that it was specifically argued that the name of the respondent was placed on the ECL pursuant to the order of the court dated 8-4-2013 whereunder, the respondent was restrained from going abroad.
“The said order of this court was an independent order which did not merge into the final order”, the government maintained, adding that it still held the field and the SHC was bound to follow that order.
It submitted that the SHC completely ignored this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned judgment by treating the said order as only an interim order without realising and keeping in view the most important factor that the said petitions wherein the aforesaid order had been passed were disposed of and not dismissed.
It contended that the doctrine of merger was not applicable to the instant case, adding that it was applicable to the orders and judgment of the Appellate Court.
“It is submitted that the impugned judgment is a nullity in law and the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice”, the government stated.
The federal government submitted that the respondent (Pervez Musharraf) was accused of the offence of high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution, adding that if the respondent was allowed to go abroad, his trial would eventually end, since the extradition treaty executed between Pakistan and UAE did not cover an act of ‘Political Crime’.
“This basis was not appreciated by the SHC”, the government contended, adding that the permission granted by the SHC under the impugned judgment would adversely affect the proceedings in the trial of the respondent.
The federal government further submitted that the learned division bench which passed the impugned judgment was bound by the order/judgment of a coordinate bench passed in Criminal Misc Application No262 of 2013 passed on 23.12.2013 which held that the name of the respondent was placed on the ECL on the order of the Supreme Court.
“The reasoning of the learned division bench regarding the said order of the coordinate bench’s finding is flawed in as much as there was a specific plea to that effect taken by the respondent and there was clear finding on it by the bench”, the federation contended, praying that the impugned judgment was therefore liable to be set aside on this score alone.
The federation submitted that the respondent had been avoiding his trial on one pretext or the other and since he was accused amongst other offences of the most serious offence of high treason, the petitioner had rightfully placed the name of the respondent on the ECL in the public interest.
“The respondent has all the reasons not to come back to Pakistan once he leaves Pakistan and his trial, which is at an advanced stage, would simply be brought to a standstill”, the government contended adding that in the public interest and pursuant to the orders of the superior courts, it disallowed the application of the respondent and had insisted for the respondent’s name to be kept on the ECL.
The federal government, challenged the order of the Sindh High Court (SHC) striking down the name of former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf from the Exit Control List (ECL).
In this regard, the apex court constituted a two-member bench to take up the petition.
The government filed leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the learned SHC of June 12, 2014, ordering the removal of the name of Pervez Musharraf from the ECL.
The federation prayed to the apex court to set aside the SHC judgment in the interest of justice.
It further prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition, the impugned judgment might be suspended and the name of the respondent (Pervez Musharraf) might continue to remain on the ECL and he might be restrained from going abroad without the permission of this court.
A two-member SHC bench on June 12, 2014 struck down the name of Pervez Musharraf from the ECL observing that mere pendency of civil and criminal cases against a citizen was no ground to deny him the fundamental right of travelling within or outside the country.
The court, however, had suspended the operation of the judgment for 15 days observing that since the court order was self-executory, therefore the respondents, if they so desired, might file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
In its appeal, the federal government, however, contended that the impugned judgment was void, without jurisdiction, against the facts and law and the Constitution and the same was liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
It further submitted that the SHC lacked the territorial jurisdiction for the reasons and facts narrated herein above. The impugned judgment was therefore, without jurisdiction and the same was liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
The federation recalled that it was specifically argued that the name of the respondent was placed on the ECL pursuant to the order of the court dated 8-4-2013 whereunder, the respondent was restrained from going abroad.
“The said order of this court was an independent order which did not merge into the final order”, the government maintained, adding that it still held the field and the SHC was bound to follow that order.
It submitted that the SHC completely ignored this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned judgment by treating the said order as only an interim order without realising and keeping in view the most important factor that the said petitions wherein the aforesaid order had been passed were disposed of and not dismissed.
It contended that the doctrine of merger was not applicable to the instant case, adding that it was applicable to the orders and judgment of the Appellate Court.
“It is submitted that the impugned judgment is a nullity in law and the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice”, the government stated.
The federal government submitted that the respondent (Pervez Musharraf) was accused of the offence of high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution, adding that if the respondent was allowed to go abroad, his trial would eventually end, since the extradition treaty executed between Pakistan and UAE did not cover an act of ‘Political Crime’.
“This basis was not appreciated by the SHC”, the government contended, adding that the permission granted by the SHC under the impugned judgment would adversely affect the proceedings in the trial of the respondent.
The federal government further submitted that the learned division bench which passed the impugned judgment was bound by the order/judgment of a coordinate bench passed in Criminal Misc Application No262 of 2013 passed on 23.12.2013 which held that the name of the respondent was placed on the ECL on the order of the Supreme Court.
“The reasoning of the learned division bench regarding the said order of the coordinate bench’s finding is flawed in as much as there was a specific plea to that effect taken by the respondent and there was clear finding on it by the bench”, the federation contended, praying that the impugned judgment was therefore liable to be set aside on this score alone.
The federation submitted that the respondent had been avoiding his trial on one pretext or the other and since he was accused amongst other offences of the most serious offence of high treason, the petitioner had rightfully placed the name of the respondent on the ECL in the public interest.
“The respondent has all the reasons not to come back to Pakistan once he leaves Pakistan and his trial, which is at an advanced stage, would simply be brought to a standstill”, the government contended adding that in the public interest and pursuant to the orders of the superior courts, it disallowed the application of the respondent and had insisted for the respondent’s name to be kept on the ECL.
