SC wants to block way of abrogators of constitution forever

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday said it wanted to block the way of abrogators of constitution once for all.

Heading a two-member bench hearing treasons cases against Pervez Musharraf, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja remarked, “65 years have elapsed and all was kept secret from the people. Martial laws have annihilated the national economy. People have passed through so many tribulations, mishaps and commissions upon commissions. Now we want to decide the case in broad daylight so that factual position could come before the people. Even the Asghar Khan commission’s report is not available with the federal government. The federation’s interest in the case is next to nothing. We want to block the way of breakers of the constitution forever.”

The judge said whosoever had committed mistake would be punished at all costs.

“The attorney general (AG) plays the role of a bridge between the federation and judiciary. He should be present in court to submit his own view point and the federation’s reply. We have nothing to do with the number of behind-the-curtain names. We will not rest until the rule of law is ensured and due rights are extended to the people.”

Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said the federation was working under the constitution. “Nothing will be left in the country if the abrogators are unremittingly allowed to abrogate the constitution. We neither support nor oppose anyone. But we cannot allow any one to abrogate the law and constitution. Enough is enough. The destiny of the country should change now. The country continues to run at least under a handicapped democracy. On the other hand, abrogation of constitution leads to dismantling of economic structure of the country.”

Amjid Chaudhry advocate, who is settled in UK, took the ground in his arguments that former president abrogated the constitution and devastated national institutions. Therefore, he should be barred from contesting polls.

The court asked Deputy Attorney General Ali Zai what he thought about the case. Ali Zai said he had come prepared for the missing persons’ case and knew nothing about Musharraf’s case.

The court summoned the law secretary at 1 pm, while acting law secretary Sohail Tanvir Qureshi appeared before the court in the meantime.

Qureshi said he had objections over the court’s proceedings with reference to the case. “However, AG Irfan Qadir will give the proper reply.”

Later, the AG appeared in court and said the federation had a lot of objections on court’s proceeding with regard to the case, but not with reference to the petitions.

The court asked him to present the objections in writing rather than stating them verbally.

AK Dogar requested the court that a panel of high court judges be constituted to initiate proceedings against Musharraf.

The court said only the election tribunal could hear objections on election matters and nomination papers of Pervez Musharraf and “we will not hear the same”.

The court directed the AG to present his objections in writing and adjourned the hearing until April 17.

The court also deferred the decision until April 17 in respect of the application filed by Ahmad Raza Kasuri, counsel for Pervez Musharraf, seeking constitution of full bench for hearing the case.

Kasuri said the court should decide first if the sitting bench had to hear the case or a full court be constituted with reference to the case.

Justice Khawaja remarked, “We cannot give a decision to this extent now. We will decide after reading the replies of the AG and federation on April 17. May be the federation and the AG side with Kasuri. However, every thing is an assumption now. A decision will be given when all things come before the court.”

Musharraf reply:

Earlier, former president Pervez Musharraf filed his reply with the Supreme Court after removing objections raised by apex court registrar in the high treason case.

He has taken the plea that registration of high treason case and initiation of proceedings over it were the discretionary powers of the federal government only and an individual had no right to resort to court on this count.

“All the petitions filed on this matter are based on mala fide intent and have been filed on the occasion when the former president is undertaking visit all over the country in connection with his election campaign. Any proceedings in this regard will not meet the ends of justice,” reply added.