Supreme Court Justice Ejaz Afzal has remarked there was no legal and constitutional justification in the military overstepping its limits to take hold of power.
A three-member SC bench presided over by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja took up the Musharraf treason case for hearing on Monday.
Justice Ejaz Afzal said “the modus operandi on army’s interference in state affairs is enshrined in the constitution, which cannot be breached”.
Qamar Afzal, counsel for former president Pervez Musharraf, argued “Article 25 of the constitution provides for ensuring equal treatment. Initiation of proceedings against an individual included in this case will run contrary to section 25 of the constitution. Keeping in view Article 25 in perspective of maintainability of petitions is essential. SC does not take review of criminal case directly.”
Justice Khilji Arif Hussain remarked, “Constitution is not legacy of anyone and the court gives decision per law and constitution.”
Justice Jawwad S Khawaja observed that the three-member SC bench had to see if Article 6 applied there or otherwise.
Qamar Afzal contended that the elected government of the people had completed its five years tenure and no step towards initiation of proceedings against former president Pervez Musharraf was taken. “Therefore, this matter stands no more. Registering the case under high treason act is the domain of the federal government only.”
Advocate Ahmad Raza Kasuri argued, “This case has assumed paramount significance at national and international level.”
Justice Jawwad said the apex court would keep in view all norms of justice in the case.
Kasuri further argued that November 3, 2007 steps had not come from one man but they were a product of collective wisdom. “If these steps are seen in perspective of the situation and circumstances prevailing at that time then there are causes behind them. PCO was proclaimed and all these reasons are laid down therein. November 3, 2007 steps were taken in the background of deteriorating law and order, bomb blasts, terrorism and suicide attacks.”
He further said all three services chiefs, corps commanders, prime minister and members of cabinet were also included in the decision for taking these steps and the responsibility could not be fixed only on former president Pervez Musharraf in this respect.
Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked, “How can the armed forces declare November, 3 steps just. Constitution has set the role of the armed forces.”
He further remarked that the way judges could not interfere in state affairs, the armed forces could also not interfere therein.
Kasuri said if the court issued directives to the federal government for initiation of proceedings, it would be interference in the powers delegated to the institutions and the court this way would go beyond its ambit. “You have prescribed powers of all the institutions. Legislative, executive and judiciary have to work within their parameters and if any institution oversteps its powers, the situation will worsen. No order was given for taking any action against Pervez Musharraf in the court’s decision which was issued on July, 31.”
“The ruling reveals that the court was also clear that only federation was entitled to initiate proceedings with reference to the matter related to conviction in abrogation of constitution case. The state has to initiate proceedings taking in view the situation and circumstances. The federation did not see the situation proper, therefore, it did not take action. If the proceedings are initiated, the country may fall to instability,” Kasuri added.
“Can military interference come to a halt due to court’s decision? Bhutto had said in 1974 that he had buried dictatorship and Bonapartism. It revived after three years. Army is a force in developing countries and it cannot be prevented under Article 6. When a certain situation is created, the army will come again,” the counsel went on to say.
Justice Jawwad remarked that upholding law and constitution and ensuring rule of democracy was intent of the constitution. “We will protect it,” he added.
The court adjourned the hearing until today.
Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday directed the interior secretary to appear in person today (Tuesday) for apprising the court about the action taken against Islamabad IGP Bani Amin in the Musharraf escape case.
A single bench of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui issued the directive while hearing the case pertaining to Musharraf’s escape from court premises.
During the course of hearing, Deputy Attorney General Tariq Mahmood Jahangeri apprised the bench that Interior Additional Secretary Tariq Hayat Khan could not appear before the court due to illness.
Upon this, the court summoned the interior secretary along with progress report of inquiry against the IGP and adjourned the matter until Tuesday.
On the other hand, the hearing of bail plea in the judges’ detention case against Musharraf was adjourned until May 8.
It was postponed due to the absence of anti-terrorist court special judge Kausar Abbas Zaidi.
The same applies to this Judiciary also.It has been very selective in its handling of important cases of national importance including the one involving a family member. It has been issuing statements like politicians and then ignoring blatant breaches of law by its members in black coats.So let us be clear that Judiciary has many skeletons in their cupboard.
It was very right by Mr. Musharraf of ousted the Judges aside was right. and time will prove that. it is really coming clear to every one even the one how have restored the judges .
Comments are closed.