Akram Sheikh, head of prosecution in the treason case against Pervez Musharraf, informed the Special Court on Tuesday that Musharraf’s counsel was busy in banking on arguments which had already been declared null and void by Lahore High Court (LHC).
The three-member bench, headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali resumed hearing of the case against Pervez Musharaf for breaching the Constitution by imposing emergency on November 3, 2007. At the outset of hearing, Musharraf’s counsel Dr Khalid Ranjha continued his arguments over the jurisdiction of the SC, constituted to hear the treason case.
He concluded his arguments by saying that the court had no authority to hear the case against Pervez Musharraf in the presence of Army Act 1952 which have a provision for trial of high treason offence for army personnel.
Responding to the arguments, Chief Prosecutor Akram Sheikh apprised the bench that Musharraf’s lawyer Dr Khalid Ranjha was focusing on Army Act which was declared null by the Lahore High Court in 1977.
On this, Khalid Ranjha argued that the Supreme Court had endorsed the Act in Sheikh Aftab Hussain case in 1999.
Akram Sheikh asked how Musharraf’s counsel could depend on the amended Act which had already been declared unconstitutional in 1977. He said “there was not a single word against high treason in the Army Act 1952”, hence it was never mentioned in any schedule of law and the said Act was for a specific area and time. For that reason, he said, the courts did not endorse the law.
“The reference of law which the courts have termed unconstitutional, falls in the category of contempt of court,” he declared.
Akram Sheikh said that high treason Act never remained part of the Army Act and it was introduced on April 30, 1977 which the high court termed unconstitutional on June 5, 1977 as the Act was introduced for proclamation of martial law in Lahore and other major cities.
During his arguments, Dr Khalid Ranjha said the incumbent government had initiated the trial against Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution, read with High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973, out of personal vendetta. The SC was established under Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976, he said, adding that Army Act was applicable on an army man breaching the Constitution.
Ranjah also sought the transfer of Musharraf’s case to a military court, citing provisions of Army Act.
He said that sections relating to high treason were included in the Army Act 1952 and added that under Article 245, Army Act would even apply to civilians living in areas where the army had been summoned.
He contended that the special court cannot conduct a trial of either a person who is in uniform or retired, adding that it is mandatory in law that a military personal could only be court martialled under Army Act if they commit any offence.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing till today, (Wednesday).