Former president Pervez Musharraf’s counsel Ibrahim Satti on Thursday said the verdict of July 31 had been announced by a 14-memebr bench and the same bench should be formed for hearing the treason case against the former COAS.
A three-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja resumed hearing in a set of petitions seeking the initiation of treason case against the former army chief.
Satti said, “If there are ambiguities in the rules and regulations of the Supreme Court, the constitution of the state would be preferred,” argued the learned counsel.
He also said that India had also formed a constitutional court in order to tackle such hurdles and complexities.
Satti said Musharraf was not a party in the petition in which a ruling was issued against him.
Moreover, Attorney General Irfan Qadir said the measures taken on November 3, 2007 were unnecessary.
To this which, Justice Khawaja asked what did the attorney general mean by “unnecessary”.
He said all ends of justice would be met and a verdict would be given in consonance with law and constitution.
Justice Khilji Arif Hussain remarked, “The SC has laid down in its decision in categorical terms no step of dictators will be indemnified by the court nor the parliament wields powers to do so. If any judge of SC or high court does so he will also be proceeded against under code of conduct. Advancing remarks against the judges should stop now.”
Satti said the SC was still keeping doctrine of necessity alive.
“In the July 31 decision all martial laws imposed by past dictators were declared just while Musharraf’s martial law was declared a martial law that he imposed to serve personal interest because he wanted to become president. The court should not give such decision which may affect trial process against Musharraf.”
Satti said the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict was not against Musharraf directly.
Justice Khilji remarked, “You have tried to give an impression that we have been endorsing ultra constitutional steps. Read the other paragraphs of the decision. Court has made it clear that parliament is not allowed to indemnify the steps ultra vires of the constitutional nor any judge of Supreme Court or high court can give verdict in favour of them. If it is so done, the proceedings will be initiated against them under code of conduct.”
He made a special mention of LFO by Musharraf, saying all judges had taken oath under PCO and the sitting Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was also among them.
He further said the court’s objective was making others realise rather than taking revenge.
Satti said Musharraf was never heard. “I have not asked for setting aside the decision. Let the federal government do what it has to do.”
The hearing of the case was adjourned until Monday.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed off on Thursday an appeal filed by Islamabad’s Inspector General police against Islamabad High Court’s earlier verdict and ordered the Interior Ministry to hold an impartial inquiry into the matter keeping in view the IHC’s earlier directives over the case.
Islamabad Police IG Bani Amin had filed an appeal against the IHC’s earlier decision which had ordered action after holding him responsible for Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s escape from the court premises on April 18.
Amin had blamed the Rangers for the incident and pled to the apex court that they were not expecting that Rangers, deputed inside the IHC for security purpose, would become helpful in his escape.