Tag: Pervez Musharraf

  • Explainer: Musharraf’s crime, punishment as per law

    Former military ruler General (r) Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday was sentenced to death by a special court hearing the high treason case against him.

    The case was reigstered against the ex-dictator for imposing a state of emergency on November 3, 2007, by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government in 2013 under Article 6 of the counstitution.

    Here is what Article 6 says:

    “Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”

    The second clause of the article maintains that any person aiding, abetting or collaborating in the acts will also be considered guilty of high treason; while clause 2A states that an act of high treason cannot be validated by any court, including the Supreme Court (SC) and a high court.

    The last clause directs the parliament to provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason, and according to the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, the punishment is death or lifetime imprisonment.

    STATE OF EMERGENCY:

    On November 3, 2007, the then president and chief of army staff (COAS) Musharraf issued a proclamation of emergency, which held the constitution in a state of temporary suspension.

    While he later resigned as army chief 25 days into the emergency on November 28, the state of emergency and its responses are generally attributed to the controversies surrounding his re-election during the presidential election on October 6, 2007, including his holding of both offices of president and COAS at the time.

    Coming to power six years later, Nawaz Sharif had announced putting the former military ruler on trial for treason, saying the former president had committed treason by abrogating the constitution and should be tried under the law.

  • US officials regret treating Pakistan as a friend; say Islamabad ‘played double game’

    US officials regret treating Pakistan as a friend; say Islamabad ‘played double game’

    United States (US) officials in the Bush and Obama administrations believe the “treatment of Pakistan as a friend” in Washington’s trillion-dollar Afghanistan war was a “critical error” as Islamabad “played a double game”, The Washington Post has revealed in its “secret history” of the 18-year-long conflict.

    The American newspaper on Monday published US government papers in an extensive report, ‘The Afghanistan Papers’. It contains confidential government papers containing around 2,000 pages of previously unpublished notes of interviews with US generals and diplomats who were key decision makers along with aid workers and Afghan officials playing a direct role in the conflict.

    As per the report, US officials admit that despite receiving advanced weapons and billions of dollars in aid, “Pakistan never supported America and was playing a double game in the conflict as early as 2002”.

    The Print quoted the report as claiming that Pakistan had joined the US in the war against terror, “but it also supported the Taliban and the al-Qaeda leadership in finding safe havens and logistics support on its soil and in Afghanistan”.

    The documents obtained by the Post also revealed that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the Afghan war throughout the 18-year campaign and they “kept making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false while hiding unmistakable evidence that the war had become unwinnable”.

    Over the past 18 years, over 775,000 American troops have served in Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Over 2,300 US troops died in the conflict while 20,589 returned home wounded, according to the US Defense Department figures. At present, over 13,000 American troops are serving in Afghanistan whereas several thousand veterans suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

    The George W Bush administration had invaded the country in 2001 to hunt down 9/11 perpetrator, al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, and destroy his terror organisation.

    However, the war, continued by Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, eventually became a prolonged conflict, with the US objectives changing over the years to include fighting the ultraconservative religious faction Taliban and installing a democratic Afghan government.

    In the ‘Lessons Learned’ interviews, other US officials said the Bush administration compounded its first mistake by “treating Pakistan as a friend”.

    This was because of former military ruler General (r) Pervez Musharraf, who had allowed the Pentagon to use Pakistani airspace and US intelligence agency CIA to track al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistani territory.

    “As a result, the Bush White House was slow to recognise that Pakistan was simultaneously giving covert support to the Taliban, according to the interviews,” the Post said in its report.

  • Law ministry refuses to share details of lawyers, fee paid for Musharraf trial

    The law ministry has rejected an application seeking details of the legal team hired to prosecute former army ruler General (retd) Pervez Musharraf on treason charges, and the fees paid to them by saying that its a classified matter, thus can’t be held answerable by common citizens Geo News reported.

    According to the details, Mukhtar Ahmed Ali, the applicant, had sought the details under the Right of Access to Information Act 2017, commonly known as RTI law. Mukhtar wanted to know how judiciously the money contributed by public through their taxes is being used by the ministry.

    Mukhtar Ali said, the ministry declared him ineligible to post such inquiries. The ministry in its reply referred to a Cabinet Division notification’s issued in 1993, but it did not explain or share the contents of the notification. The reply also stated that the ministry has claimed exemption by saying it has been declared “classified, therefore, your request is hereby declined on this aspect”.

    Ali had earlier sought answers to four questions, asking for the list of the members of the prosecution team, and relevant law firms engaged for Pervaiz Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 of the Constitution and the fees paid to them.

    He further sought details of out-of-pocket expenses (e.g. travel, lodging, meal) reimbursed to them and asked for the fee break-up paid to each member of the legal team.

    After the ministry’s refusal, Mukhtar has approached Pakistan Information Commission (PIC), an appellant body set up under the RTI law for dealing with the complaints lodged by the applicants against the government.

    In a rejoinder sent to the law ministry, Mukhtar said his application has been rejected without being given due consideration as the authorities “has not even bothered to consider Article 19A and the (Right of Access to Information) Act in the course of deciding my application.”

  • Musharraf treason case: Special court refuses to obey IHC’s order to halt verdict

    Musharraf treason case: Special court refuses to obey IHC’s order to halt verdict

    The special court overseeing former military ruler Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s high treason case has refused to accept Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) order to halt the verdict due Thursday, a private media outlet reported Thursday.

    According to reports, the special court has said that they “are not bound to accept IHC’s order” that on Wednesday had stopped it from issuing a ruling in the case filed against Musharraf by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government for the imposition of an extra-constitutional emergency in November 2007.

    The special court was set to announce the ruling in the treason case Thursday, however, the IHC, which was hearing petitions filed by former president Musharraf and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government to postpone it, had told the court to not announce the verdict just yet.

    It had also directed the special court to admit the arguments of all parties in the case before announcing the ruling and ensure a fair trial.

    MUSHARRAF TREASON CASE:

    The PML-N government had in 2013 filed the treason case against Musharraf over the president’s imposition of extra-constitutional emergency in November 2007.

    Earlier this year, head of the prosecution, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, tendered his resignation. In his resignation letter sent to the interior secretary, Sheikh expressed his inability to proceed with the case after the imminent change of government at the centre.

    Akram was appointed as the head of the prosecution in the case in November 2013, by the then ruling PML-N.

    Musharraf was indicted in the case in March 2014 after he appeared before the court and rejected all charges.

    On March 18, 2016, the former president left the country for Dubai for medical treatment after his name was removed from the exit control list (ECL) on the orders of the Supreme Court (SC).

    A few months later, the special court had declared him a proclaimed offender and ordered the confiscation of his property owing to his continuous inability to appear.

    Later, his passport and identity card were also cancelled on orders of the apex court.

  • PTI’s ally criticises govt over ‘messed up priorities’

    PTI’s ally criticises govt over ‘messed up priorities’

    Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the chief of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) – a coalition partner of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government in Centre and Punjab – has criticised the ruling party for bringing the matter of former military ruler General Musharraf’s high treason case to fore again, Express Tribune reported.

    According to the details, Shujaat said that the common man would not benefit from the case even if it continues for five more years in the courts.

    “This [case] will also not help in controlling inflation, unemployment and other crises,” PML-Q leader said.

    He also said that his party was deliberating upon the option of moving the Supreme Court (SC) to identify those responsible for the rising inflation in the country.

    “It is important to identify the real culprit behind prevailing inflation, unemployment and other issues that have led the country to the current situation,” Shujaat said while addressing the media in Lahore on Tuesday.

    Shujaat asked, “Are previous governments responsible for these crises or is it the current one?”.

    The PML-Q chief said that all politicians who are betraying the general public by giving them false hope must be unmasked, adding that “We are consulting our legal advisers for moving the apex court so that those responsible for the current mess are identified”.

    On Monday, the government [prosecution in this case] petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to set aside the November 19 order of a special court trying Pervaiz Musharraf for “subverting the Constitution” in 2007.

    The move came on a day when a Lahore High Court (LHC) bench took up a similar plea filed by Musharraf, asking his attorney to argue on the maintainability of his client’s petition on Tuesday. It is the first time in Pakistan’s history that a former army chief has faced prosecution for high treason.

    Shujaat advised his coalition partners avoid fresh conundrums, asking that “Will they be able to control soaring tomato price even in next five years with such performance”.

  • Imran govt steps up to support former military ruler in high treason case?

    Days after former dictator General (r) Pervez Musharraf petitioned the Lahore High Court (LHC) to challenge the reservation of a special court verdict in the high treason case against him, the Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan-led government has also sought postponement of the same.

    According to media reports, the Interior Ministry on Monday also challenged the forthcoming November 28 verdict in a high court and said that Musharraf’s co-accused were not made part of the trial.

    In its petition, the ministry requested that the verdict in the high treason case be stopped until a new prosecution team was formed as the government had last month sacked the entire prosecution team formed by the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government.

    On October 23, the Interior Ministry had denotified the prosecution and constitutional teams, as well as the research assistant working on the high treason case against Musharraf. The notification said that the step was taken under Section 4-A of the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970, which deals with appointments made by the president. It says that the services of the teams have been “disengaged”.

    “The prosecution team was denotified on October 23, but it pursued the case a day later on October 24 and submitted written arguments without any authority to do so,” the Interior Ministry, led by Brig (r) Ijaz Shah of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), reportedly said.

    Hearing Musharraf’s separate petition challenging the forthcoming verdict, the LHC, earlier in the day, directed the counsel of the former military dictator to present arguments on the maintainability of the petition seeking suspension of the ex-army chief’s high treason trial in a special court.

    Justice Sayyed Mazhar Ali Akbar Naqvi told Musharraf’s counsel to argue on the maintainability of the petition on Tuesday. “How can the LHC hear this petition when matters relating to Musharraf are pending in the country’s top court [Supreme Court of Pakistan]?” asked Justice Naqvi.

    “Also, how is the petition maintainable in LHC when the petitioner is a resident of Islamabad?”

    The ailing former military ruler had last week petitioned LHC to stay the proceedings of a special court trying him for “subverting the Constitution on November 3, 2007” until he recuperates and appears before the court in person.

    Citing the example of cases against former PM Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf’s counsel argued that the LHC had found Nawaz’s petition maintainable although his cases were also being heard in Islamabad.

    “Nawaz Sharif is a resident of Lahore while Musharraf is a resident of Islamabad,” replied Justice Naqvi.

    The counsel further contended that the treason case against Musharraf was filed without following due process. “The case was filed with only the approval of then-premier Nawaz. His cabinet’s approval was never sought,” said Musharraf’s lawyer.

    Justice Naqvi adjourned the proceedings till Tuesday and directed the former army chief’s counsel to explain why his petition should be heard by the LHC.

    On November 19, the three-judge special court, which has been hearing the high treason case against Musharraf since 2013, reserved its verdict after six years.

    The verdict is likely to be announced on November 28 in the absence of Musharraf, who went to the United Arab Emirates in May 2016 for ‘medical treatment’ and has not returned since to face the court. The high treason charge carries capital punishment in Pakistan.

    MUSHARRAF CASE:

    The PML-N government had filed the treason case against Musharraf over the president’s imposition of an extra-constitutional emergency in November 2007.

    Earlier this year, head of the prosecution, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, tendered his resignation. In his resignation letter sent to the interior secretary, Sheikh expressed his inability to proceed with the case after the imminent change of government at the centre.

    Sheikh was appointed as the head of the prosecution in the case in November 2013, by the then-PML-N led government.

    The former army chief was indicted in the case in March 2014 after he appeared before the court and rejected all charges.

    On March 18, 2016, the former president left Pakistan for Dubai for medical treatment after his name was removed from the Exit Control List on the orders of the Supreme Court.

    A few months later, the special court had declared him a proclaimed offender and ordered the confiscation of his property owing to his no-show. Later, on orders of the Supreme Court, Musharraf’s passport and identity card were also cancelled.

  • PTI govt denotifies prosecution team in Gen (r) Musharraf’s high treason case

    PTI govt denotifies prosecution team in Gen (r) Musharraf’s high treason case

    The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government on Thursday denotified the prosecution team in the high treason case against former military ruler Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf.

    According to The Express Tribune, the prosecution team was hired in November 2013, during the tenure of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif.

    The special court — hearing the treason case against Musharraf for violating Article 6 of the constitution — adjourned the hearing without any proceedings on Thursday and was informed that the government had dismissed the prosecution team, reports said.

    The court was told that Reza Bashir — the government lawyer provided to the former dictator — was ill and was unable to attend the previous hearing.

    The three-judge special tribunal also summoned secretary interior on November 19.

    Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth asked the prosecutor if any notification was received, to which prosecutor Tariq Hassan said that he had not been notified.

    “Can the prosecution team be dismissed in this manner?” asked Justice Waqar Ahmed. “I sat all night preparing for this case,” responded the prosecutor.

    The court also asked to be informed under which law the prosecution team was denotified by the government.

    Approving the lawyers’ request, the court gave Reza Bashir one more chance to attend the next hearing on November 19.

    The former army chief, who took power in 1999, is facing a treason trial under Article 6 of the constitution as well as Section 2 of the High Treason Act on a complaint moved by the federal government.

    Article 6 of the constitution deals with matters of “high treason” and states that “any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.”