Musharraf doesn’t appear, SC warns of arrest

-Special court warns former dictator of arrest after he fails to show up at indictment hearing citing ‘security concerns’
-Security officials discover two pounds of explosives near Musharraf’s farmhouse that Khawaja Asif claims were planted by ‘Musharraf’s sympathisers’
-Musharraf’s lawyers claim they are also facing life threats
-Justice Arab rejects all objections to formation of special court for treason hearing, summons Musharraf in court today
For the second time since treason proceedings were opened against him, former military ruler Pervez Musharraf failed to appear before judges, after explosives were again found along his route to a hearing on Wednesday.
Taking exception to the non-appearance, a judge of the special court warned that Musharraf could face arrest if he failed to appear at the hearing, at which he is expected to be indicted, today (Thursday).
Security officials discovered around two pounds of explosives just a mile from Musharraf’s farmhouse. A hearing on Dec. 24 was also adjourned after the police found explosives and handguns near the former military strongman’s residence.
Citing security concerns, Musharraf’s lawyers asked the special court for a five-week adjournment, but Justice Faisal Arab, who is heading the three-member special judicial panel, ordered Islamabad police to ensure that Musharraf appears before the court on Thursday.
Later in the evening, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif told a private TV channel that explosives were being planted by Musharraf’s “sympathisers” to try to derail the trial.
“People bought by Musharraf with money are behind this,” Asif said in the talk show, adding that the former dictator was doling out funds he had accumulated while in power to secure new political support.
Musharraf is accused of subverting the constitution when he imposed emergency rule in November 2007. He has denied the charge, calling the trial a political vendetta. Musharraf has also challenged the legality of the special court and said that he should be tried in a military, not civilian, court.
Since last week, Musharraf has gone on a media offensive, giving interviews to local and international news outlets and pleading his case before the public. He has also hinted that the country’s powerful military is upset over his treatment — despite silence from the current military leadership.
The treason proceedings are unprecedented. Powerful generals have largely avoided prosecution and the trial has fuelled fears of a confrontation between the civilian and the military leadership.

LAWYERS CLASH:
Before the hearing on Wednesday was adjourned, prosecutors and Musharraf’s lawyers clashed.
Musharraf’s lawyer Ahmad Raza Qasuri compared the special court to Shakespearean theater. And he said his client faced grave dangers from militants and political enemies and should be exempted from appearing in person.
“The court can come under question if some harm is done to Musharraf,” Qasuri said, adding that even the judges could become targets of militants.
However, Justice Arab dismissed Qasuri’s arguments and said courts function even in wartime.
“His (Musharraf) summon has already been issued and the court does not want to be ridiculed. We should not be forced to issue any order for his attendance. The presence of the culprit is must in the court for a non-bailable offence,” said the judge.
Justice Arab said “Musharraf’s offence is unpardonable. We don’t want to issue orders for his arrest. However, we will be forced to do so if he does not appear. His offence is non-bailable thus he can be arrested by a common policeman.”
Prosecutor Akram Sheikh said he had sent a letter to the interior secretary for security arrangements and foolproof security was ensured for the former president. He said that the former army chief could only be indicted if he is present in the court.
Musharraf’s lawyer Qasuri said that there were four issues with reference to his client’s security: Security of the court, security of judges, security of lawyers and security of his client.
“Musharraf has appointed a separate lawyer in every matter. His 12 lawyers will give arguments in the court. Musharraf is ready to come to court like the previous hearings but he could not come due to security concerns. Explosive material has been seized on four occasions outside his residence and in the surrounding areas. It is responsibility of the court to provide full protection to him. We have reservations over his security matters,” Qasuri said.
Anwar Mansoor, also on Musharraf’s defence panel, submitted that his lawyers are facing life threats as well. He said that his vehicle was attacked in Lahore by a car with tinted-glasses and bearing no number plate.
“I approached police for registration of a case but they have not entertained my complaint. The government is constantly hurling threats. I have photographic evidence of the attack on my car,” he said.
Justice Faisal Arab remarked, “Give us these pictures. We will take action.”
OBJECTIONS REJECTED:
Coming back to the case, Mansoor said “Only three high courts were in existence when the law with reference to treason was enacted, the number of high courts has increased to five. Therefore, number of judges should now be five instead of three. The law should be amended.”
He said under Article 9, the prime minister is government. Criminal laws are not applicable to this case. Whosoever will breach law under Article 6 of the Constitution will be rendered liable to committing treason. Those found collaborating in abrogating the Constitution will be considered criminals as well. Parliament can enact the law but it cannot change it. The SC will formulate its rules and regulations for hearing any case by it.”
The court asked Mansoor to give his arguments as he filed petitions against the formation and jurisdiction of the special court to which the lawyer read out Article 6, Special Court Act, High Treason Act and other laws.
The court rejected all objections saying the proceedings were already underway thus there was no use of such petitions.
Mansoor said the prime minister was biased against his client. “Not only the president, but the then prime minister and his entire cabinet were involved in the process of abrogating the constitution,” he submitted.
The court will resume hearing of the case today.