DG ISPR Press Conference after detailed Verdict in Gen. Musharraf (R) case

[araz]

The verdict looks more like a personal vendetta toward Musharf. Its more like provoking Armed forces to do something i hope they cant cautiously . But i do wonder 167 page verdict with a clause of hanging him at D-chowk if he dies naturally is it legal.
Why don't these judges do something about the corrupt who have fled Pakistan after looting it for decades? if i am not wrong they also took oath to uphold law of the land and as far as i remember corruption is still a crime. What about those who have used Police Encounters to silence people?
Law is same for everyone hang Musharaff but also hang the corrupt politicians who have fled with the help of them? What about Arslan Chaudry why don't go against him we all know how he made his money? The Lawyers involved in PIC attack, People died there?

I think not. The problem remains that when Law looks at the situation it should(unlike the necessity of Need by justice Muneer) look at what was asked and respond in an impartual way to the question.
Personalities aside one has to ask the question
A. Whether Musharraf committed those acts which he is being accused of .
B. Whether it falls within the remit of high treason.
If the answer to both is positive then it stands that he has been found guilty and ahould face the music.
Although I find the ruling that in case of death his body should be hung by D chawk distasteful. It is strictly not unislamic although still distasteful.
Hajaaj Bin Yousuf hung the body ofHazrat Abdullah ibn Zubair at the gates of Madinah for 3 days. Iam not a religious scholar butin the presence of evidence we need to ascertain whether that act was legal in Islam.
I understand the delicacy of the matter but sensitivities aside we need tobe careful in/labelling this or that unislamic without due deliberation from the religious scholars of Fiqh before one would venture out with an answer.
Personally this countey has dismissed PMs but not punished them, let out convicted criminals for "alleged Treatment" to foreign countries. Do we then have the moral terpitude to punish an army man? I do not know the answer to that.
Atcsome stage in time our nation will look at this judgement to see whehter it did good to the country or not. Ithink even though it might be impractical thos decision will have far reaching results.
Ihave expressed my opinion on the legal side of things. I remain a proud and honest Pakistani and love my army. However at some stage we need to make decisions which require grit and honesty. How we that the least he should do is/resign.stand by these remains to be seen . Ifind Farough Naseem to be in contempt of Court as he has commented on the integrity of the/Judge rather than the decision. For that the least he should do is resign.
A

 

[ADIL SHERDIL]

I think not. The problem remains that when Law looks at the situation it should(unlike the necessity of Need by justice Muneer) look at what was asked and respond in an impartual way to the question.
Personalities aside one has to ask the question
A. Whether Musharraf committed those acts which he is being accused of .
B. Whether it falls within the remit of high treason.
If the answer to both is positive then it stands that he has been found guilty and ahould face the music.
Although I find the ruling that in case of death his body should be hung by D chawk distasteful. It is strictly not unislamic although still distasteful.
Hajaaj Bin Yousuf hung the body ofHazrat Abdullah ibn Zubair at the gates of Madinah for 3 days. Iam not a religious scholar butin the presence of evidence we need to ascertain whether that act was legal in Islam.
I understand the delicacy of the matter but sensitivities aside we need tobe careful in/labelling this or that unislamic without due deliberation from the religious scholars of Fiqh before one would venture out with an answer.
Personally this countey has dismissed PMs but not punished them, let out convicted criminals for "alleged Treatment" to foreign countries. Do we then have the moral terpitude to punish an army man? I do not know the answer to that.
Atcsome stage in time our nation will look at this judgement to see whehter it did good to the country or not. Ithink even though it might be impractical thos decision will have far reaching results.
Ihave expressed my opinion on the legal side of things. I remain a proud and honest Pakistani and love my army. However at some stage we need to make decisions which require grit and honesty. How we that the least he should do is/resign.stand by these remains to be seen . Ifind Farough Naseem to be in contempt of Court as he has commented on the integrity of the/Judge rather than the decision. For that the least he should do is resign.
A

Sir i agree with everything you say but my Question and reservations are same. No matter he was Chief of Army and a war veteran. My reservation are that how can a judge give a decision when the convict is not preset there to put forward his case. If some precedent is created then this should also be applied on other cases. If i am not wrong emergency was implemented and many politicians were given green chit.
Judges and Politicians took oath under his reign then those positions should be null and void. and how come 99 coup was not against the Constitution but Emergency was? I am not bringing Islam in this discussion. And my question is are these judges so pious and clean why haven't we seen any action against them?
I am with you punish those who have broken the law and i mean it. Punish every single one of them and dont let them out of this country on health issues.
If you think Sir that this decision had cleared all the standards of law then i think you are mistaken. If you had to hang people in front of Public then why don't we start with terrorist, Murderers and Sexual offenders. The wording of the decision has somehow raised so many questions and i think the judges have some personal vendetta against him. This really brings the question if this decision is valid or not under law.

 

[araz]

Sir i agree with everything you say but my Question and reservations are same. No matter he was Chief of Army and a war veteran. My reservation are that how can a judge give a decision when the convict is not preset there to put forward his case. If some precedent is created then this should also be applied on other cases. If i am not wrong emergency was implemented and many politicians were given green chit.
Judges and Politicians took oath under his reign then those positions should be null and void. and how come 99 coup was not against the Constitution but Emergency was? I am not bringing Islam in this discussion. And my question is are these judges so pious and clean why haven't we seen any action against them?
I am with you punish those who have broken the law and i mean it. Punish every single one of them and dont let them out of this country on health issues.
If you think Sir that this decision had cleared all the standards of law then i think you are mistaken. If you had to hang people in front of Public then why don't we start with terrorist, Murderers and Sexual offenders. The wording of the decision has somehow raised so many questions and i think the judges have some personal vendetta against him. This really brings the question if this decision is valid or not under law.

My Friend.
Musharraf was given ample opportunities to make a representation. He offered to do so via satellite link. I am not privy to what happened to that.
While I agree that the crux of this debate is legal and will continue to be debated in future as well, and I also agree that the Bit about hanging his corpse in D chawk is a bit drastic, we have in the emotional responses failed to see whether the supposition that he ordered abrogation of the constitution and suspended the judiciary by imposing an emergencyis correct or not. If it is correct then is the punishment for it that for high treason and therefore death is the next logical step.
I think the 99 coup was suspension of the constitution not abrogation. It has previously been covered in the rule of Law of necessity which is another curse put on our heads by our beloved Judiciary.
At the end of the day I am not a Lawyer and my understanding of the Law is minimal. A line can be taken that why Musharraf alone has been targetted and the whole apparatus in place should be tried and punished. However the act was his by his own admission on public TV from what I remember.
I think there are a lot of twists and turns to this but irrespective this is a momentous occasion in Pak history and will prevent any future indulgence by the army into the running of the state.
A

 

[HRK]

How Justice Waqar Seth was included in the bench of Special court, plz listen relevant part fro 7:10

 

[ghazi52]

Special court formed for Musharraf treason trial 'unconstitutional', rules LHC

January 13, 2020

The Lahore High Court on Monday resumed hearing a set of petitions filed by former dictator Pervez Musharraf challenging multiple actions against him, including his conviction in high treason, the establishment of the trial court and filing of the complaint by the government. — AFP/File




The Lahore High Court on Monday declared the formation of a special court — which heard the treason case against former dictator Pervez Musharraf and handed him a death sentence after finding him guilty of treason — as "unconstitutional".

The LHC bench, which was hearing Musharraf's petitions against the verdict, also ruled that the treason case against the former president was not prepared in accordance with the law. A short order of the high court will be released shortly.

A three-member full bench of the LHC, comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Mohammad Ameer Bhatti and Justice Chaudhry Masood Jahangir, delivered the unanimous verdict.

Musharraf was sentenced to death by a special court in Islamabad on December 17, 2019, six years after the trial started. The case was filed by the PML-N government against Musharraf for suspending the Constitution on November 3, 2007, when he imposed emergency in the country.

According to both the federal government and Musharraf's lawyer, after the high court's ruling, the verdict issued by the special court stands voids.

In his petitions following the damning verdict, Musharraf had asked the LHC to set aside the special court’s verdict for being illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional for violating Articles 10-A, 4, 5, 10 and 10-A of the Constitution. He also sought suspension of the verdict till a decision on his petition is made.

The former military chief is currently in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. He was admitted to a hospital following deterioration of his health last month.


Arguments in court

As the court resumed hearing Musharraf's pleas on Monday morning, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A. Khan, appearing on behalf of the federal government, presented the summary and record of the formation of the special court.

On Friday, Justice Naqvi had asked the federal government to submit a summary on the formation of the special court and had directed the state's lawyer to present arguments on Monday (today).

AAG Khan said that the matter of forming a case against Musharraf was never included in the cabinet agenda.

Justice Jahangir asked when the cabinet meeting under discussion was held. AAG Khan responded that it was held on June 24, 2013. He added that the cabinet met again with regards to the appointment of judges for the special court.

"It is the truth that the formation of the special court to hear the case against Musharraf was done without cabinet approval," he said.

According to the additional attorney general, the appointment of one of the judges in the special court had come under discussion in the cabinet on May 8, 2018. He added that on October 21, 2018, Justice Yawar Ali had retired and the special court was again broken.

The court inquired if the matter of the process of filing a complaint in the case had come up in cabinet meetings. AAG Khan responded in the negative.

"According to your record, there is no agenda or notification regarding the formation of the special court or the filing of the complaint," the bench noted.

The bench also discussed if imposing an emergency amounted to the suspension of the Constitution and Justice Naqvi remarked that "emergency is part of the Constitution".

"If the situation is such that the government imposes an emergency, will a treason case be filed against that government as well?" asked Justice Naqvi.

"Can an emergency be imposed under Article 232?" asked Justice Bhatti. The additional attorney general conceded that such a step would be in accordance with the Constitution.

"Then how is it a deviation from the Constitution?" asked Justice Naqvi. The AAG told the court that while passing the 18th Amendment, the parliament had included the suspension of the Constitution in Article 6 as an offence.

The bench asked if a person can be punished for an offence committed before an amendment is passed in that regard.

"An offence committed in the past cannot be punished after new legislation," the federal government's counsel told the court.

Justice Naqvi further said that by adding three words, the parliament had changed the entire status of the Constitution. He was referring to the amendments made in Article 6, where the parliament had deemed the abrogation, subverting or suspension of the Constitution as an offence of high treason.

"How many members comprised the FIA team that conducted the inquiry against Perves Musharraf?" asked Justice Naqvi, as the court examined the proceedings of the trial against Musharraf.

"A 20-25 member team was constituted which completed the inquiry," the AAG told the court.

"How many of those members participated in the trial?" the judge asked.

"Only one of them appeared [before the special court] for the trial," said AAG Khan.

"What is the value of an inquiry against Pervez Musharraf when those who conducted the inquiry did not appear during the trial [proceedings]?" remarked the judge.


Musharraf case was not on cabinet agenda

During the hearing on Friday, the LHC had posed questions regarding the legality of the treason case and the formation of the special court that conducted the trial and had handed Musharraf the death sentence.

Barrister Ali Zafar, who has been appointed the court's amicus curea, said that the case against Musharraf seemed to have been filed on the behest of then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, as there is no record of the matter being on the agenda of any of the cabinet meetings held at the time.

"A case under Article 6 cannot be filed without the cabinet's approval," Barrister Zafar had insisted. The court asked if the matter was on the agenda of any cabinet meeting, to which Zafar had responded in the negative.

"None of the cabinet meetings were held on the matter," Barrister Zafar said.

"This was history's most important matter; can the cabinet discuss it without it being an agenda item?" the bench had asked.

In an earlier hearing on Musharraf's plea, AAG Ishtiaq A Khan on Thursday told the bench that the formation of the special trial court had not been approved by the federal cabinet.

He said the record showed that only one letter was written by then premier Nawaz to the ministry of interior for the initiation of an inquiry against Musharraf on the charge of high treason.