Treason Charges and Death Sentence for Musharaf: Analysis

[crankthatskunk]

Today President Retd. Generaal Pervaiz Musharaf handed death sentence by a special court formed for his trial under article 6 of the Pakistani constitution.

Lets have a look at the article 6 of Pakistani constitution to understand the law and charges of treason brought against President Musharaf by Nawaz government.


Article 6. High treason

6. High treason.—1[(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]

(2) Any person aiding or abetting 2[or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

3[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]

(3) 4[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Footnotes for Article 6 of Pakistani constitution.

Footnotes:

1. Section 4(i) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), substituted the said clause, in its present form, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010), in place of the clause (1) of Art. 6, as adopted in 1973, that read :

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

2. Section 4(ii) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), inserted the said word after the word “abetting” in clause (2) of Art. 6, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010).

3. Section 4(iii) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), inserted a new clause (2A), in its present form, after clause (2) of Art. 6, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010).

4. See Footnote 2 on page 4.


President Musharaf was charged for his action of 3rd of November 2007 for declaring the emergency and not for his action of coup d'etat on 14 October 1999.

It is a very deep conspiracy, which needed to be exposed. To understand the conspiracy, you have to understand first why Musharaf was not charged for his coup d'etat in October 1999!

The simple answer is that his actions of October 1999 were subsequently approved by the supreme court of Pakistan, by no other than CJ Iftikhar Chaudhary.

If Musharaf had to be tried for his coup, all others who later given seal of approval to his action, would have fall under section 2 of the article 6 of Pakistan's constitution.

Please remember, the feud started with Musharaf getting rid of CJ Iftikhar Chaudry. Nawaz and also General Kiyani then helped CJ to regain his post at the expense of Musharaf.
Thus, it would have been counter productive and against the interests of Nawaz and his government to charge Musharaf for October 1999 coup d'etat.

 

[Great Janjua]

Today President Retd. Generaal Pervaiz Musharaf handed death sentence by a special court formed for his trial under article 6 of the Pakistani constitution.

Lets have a look at the article 6 of Pakistani constitution to understand the law and charges of treason brought against President Musharaf by Nawaz government.


Article 6. High treason

6. High treason.—1[(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]

(2) Any person aiding or abetting 2[or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

3[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]

(3) 4[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Footnotes for Article 6 of Pakistani constitution.

Footnotes:

1. Section 4(i) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), substituted the said clause, in its present form, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010), in place of the clause (1) of Art. 6, as adopted in 1973, that read :

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

2. Section 4(ii) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), inserted the said word after the word “abetting” in clause (2) of Art. 6, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010).

3. Section 4(iii) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), inserted a new clause (2A), in its present form, after clause (2) of Art. 6, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010).

4. See Footnote 2 on page 4.


President Musharaf was charged for his action of 3rd of November 2007 for declaring the emergency and not for his action of coup d'etat on 14 October 1999.

It is a very deep conspiracy, which needed to be exposed. To understand the conspiracy, you have to understand first why Musharaf was not charged for his coup d'etat in October 1999!

The simple answer is that his actions of October 1999 were subsequently approved by the supreme court of Pakistan, by no other than CJ Iftikhar Chaudhary.

If Musharaf had to be tried for his coup, all others who later given seal of approval to his action, would have fall under section 2 of the article 6 of Pakistan's constitution.

Please remember, the feud started with Musharaf getting rid of CJ Iftikhar Chaudry. Nawaz and also General Kiyani then helped CJ to regain his post at the expense of Musharaf.
Thus, it would have been counter productive and against the interests of Nawaz and his government to charge Musharaf for October 1999 coup d'etat.

If you didnt know before now you know the case was chosen by Nawaz Sharif and his accomplices it is personal grudge against General Pervez Musharraf

 

[crankthatskunk]

The role of 18th amendment in the constitution of Pakistan.

PMLN and PPP in cahoot to trap Musharaf carried out some addition to the article 6 of the constitution.
There should be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the changes were brought specifically to trap Musharaf.

The changes done to the article 6 clause 1 through 18th amendment;

1973 (original) article 6:

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

The new Section 1 after 18th Amendment:

6. High treason.—1[(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]


We can notice that the words and conditions of "Suspends or holds in abeyance" were added to the section 1 of Article 6 of Pakistani constitution.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting 2[or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

the words " or collaborating"added to section 2 of article 6.

The changes to section 1 of Article 6 were Musharaf specific. It was a trap set for Musharaf, albeit illegally.

I explain you why.


1. Section 4(i) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), substituted the said clause, in its present form, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010), in place of the clause (1) of Art. 6, as adopted in 1973, that read :

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

We can notice that the 18th amendment wording, i.e. the two offences added, ""Suspends or holds in abeyance" are enforced w.e.f April 19, 2010.

The said breach of Article 6 (1) by Musharaf took place on 3rd of November 2007, when suspension of the constitution was not an offence.

Thus, it is illegal to apply a law or article of the constitution retrospectively.
Musharaf is not guilty of treason under the constitution of Pakistan at the time it took place.

Now the question the Pakistanis should ask from their judiciary, why these judges have passed such judgement against Musharaf!!

We can understand Nawaz and PPP's compulsions to take revenge from Musharaf.
But what revenge judiciary is taking from Musharaf!!
Did he paid for his actions against CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry!!

Why CJ Khosa was so keen that this judgement is passed before his retirement!!
Very dangerous questions my friends. Very dangerous.
Things are not as simple as they look.
I will ask everyone to think hard, what games are played against all of us.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Musharaf is not guilty of treason under the constitution of Pakistan at the time it took place.

He is guilty of high treason in 1999. That is a open and shut case. But this 2007 thing is a joke. Bizzare judgement.

 

[YeBeWarned]

What about those Judges who took oath under PCO and what about those Politicians who took NRO ? are they not Traitors ? Kya yeh Khula Tazaad nai ?

 

[Kabira]

What about those Judges who took oath under PCO and what about those Politicians who took NRO ? are they not Traitors ? Kya yeh Khula Tazaad nai ?

Thats why judgement is on 2007 emergency and not 1999 coup lol

The role of 18th amendment in the constitution of Pakistan.

PMLN and PPP in cahoot to trap Musharaf carried out some addition to the article 6 of the constitution.
There should be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the changes were brought specifically to trap Musharaf.

The changes done to the article 6 clause 1 through 18th amendment;

1973 (original) article 6:

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

The new Section 1 after 18th Amendment:

6. High treason.—1[(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.]


We can notice that the words and conditions of "Suspends or holds in abeyance" were added to the section 1 of Article 6 of Pakistani constitution.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting 2[or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

the words " or collaborating"added to section 2 of article 6.

The changes to section 1 of Article 6 were Musharaf specific. It was a trap set for Musharaf, albeit illegally.

I explain you why.


1. Section 4(i) of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (10 of 2010), substituted the said clause, in its present form, (w.e.f. April 19, 2010), in place of the clause (1) of Art. 6, as adopted in 1973, that read :

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

We can notice that the 18th amendment wording, i.e. the two offences added, ""Suspends or holds in abeyance" are enforced w.e.f April 19, 2010.

The said breach of Article 6 (1) by Musharaf took place on 3rd of November 2007, when suspension of the constitution was not an offence.

Thus, it is illegal to apply a law or article of the constitution retrospectively.
Musharaf is not guilty of treason under the constitution of Pakistan at the time it took place.

Now the question the Pakistanis should ask from their judiciary, why these judges have passed such judgement against Musharaf!!

We can understand Nawaz and PPP's compulsions to take revenge from Musharaf.
But what revenge judiciary is taking from Musharaf!!
Did he paid for his actions against CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry!!

Why CJ Khosa was so keen that this judgement is passed before his retirement!!
Very dangerous questions my friends. Very dangerous.
Things are not as simple as they look.
I will ask everyone to think hard, what games are played against all of us.

Musharraf is guilty because even original article 6 says so from 1973. Only problem is recent judgement ignored 1999 coup. Why? Because many of these judges were thrown out in 2007 emergency while they were collaborators in 1999.

Anyway this case now will go to SC.

 

[xyx007]

this is not a good news for Mafia who always uses this stance to get away that none of the army generals went through accountability. after this sentence, it will be tight t circle around the mafia and there's will be no chance left to get away easily from the system.

 

[The Accountant]

He is guilty of high treason in 1999. That is a open and shut case. But this 2007 thing is a joke. Bizzare judgement.

Agreed, but in this case, NS is also guilty for not allowing the plane to land in Pakistan.

this is just a boody game of power, these a** h***s dont have a single second to work for the nation

 

[maithil]

NS's decision to fire Musharraf as Army chief was not illegal. PM can fire chief.

His decision to not allow plane to land in Karachi may be tried under conspiracy to commit murder. While Musharraf's decision to impose military rule was treason. No what ifs can deny that.

 

[crankthatskunk]

Lets turn our attention to the 3rd aspect of this case, which is not discussed much in Pakistani media.

(3) 4[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

Furthermore, recently SCP has laid down strict guidelines on decision making by the governments, both federal and provincials. SCP has ruled that there should "collective responsibilities and decision making" by the cabinet.
PM on its own cannot take decisions, the decisions have to be approved by the cabinet.


Since 2016, the judgment passed in the Mustafa Impex case is all pervasive on the judicial landscape of the country. The reasons are obvious; by expanding the meaning and scope of the Federal Government - which was referred to as a ‘cabinet form of government’ - the judgment drastically re-ordered the internal dynamics of the federal government and the provincial governments. Using the language of Article 90 of the Constitution, the judgment stated that in the capacity of the Chief Executive of the country, the Prime Minister ‘executes policy decisions, but does not take them by himself’. The Supreme Court held that the Prime Minister could not move any legislation, finance or fiscal bill, or approve any budgetary or discretionary expenditure, without consulting and obtaining approval from the Cabinet. As was expected, the Federal Government filed a review, which was also dismissed.

The decision to start this case was taken by Nawaz Sharif in the background of his animosity against General Musharaf. It didn't went through the approval of the cabinet as per essence of Article 90 of the constitution of Pakistan.

In other words, the SCP has not applied its own judgement and the principles of "collective responsibilities and decision making" established in their judgement.

 

[crankthatskunk]

The next aspect of this unconstitutional judgement passed by the special court, is the involvement of the court's justices.

As explained , under Pakistani constitution the federation i.e. federal government has the rights and responsibilities to start criminal/treason proceedings under article 6. That means that the "State" as a prosecution authority is party to a criminal case. While defence is the other party in a criminal case.

Bizarrely in this case both parties to the case were not keen to continue the case, but the judiciary insisted in the continuation, despite legal arguments and reasons presented to the special court.
In other words the justices took upon themselves to continuing hearing the case and pass the judgement in haste, without due process of law.

It also be highlighted that in this case no evidence whatsoever was presented by the "State of Pakistan" or by the "defendant" General Musharaf.

It begs the question, how did the special court come to its decision in the absence of the evidence from either party!!

The "State of Pakistan" intended to withdraw this case, but it was not allowed to do so by the judges.
Yesterday, after the permissions were not granted to withdraw, the federal government then tried to plead to the court that other accused and co-conspirators should be added to the trial. This request was also rejected.

The judges then took unusual decision to announce the verdict suddenly, without any prior notice. Leaving both the state and defence attorneys gobsmacked.

Even in the UK from which most of the British India's laws are drawn, the prosecution has a right to withdraw cases.

Principle
The responsibility for continuing with or terminating proceedings lies entirely with the CPS. Prosecutors must continuously review each case and take account of any change in circumstances (see paragraph 3.6 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors).

If the prosecutor considers the proceedings should not continue, the case should be terminated at the earliest possible opportunity. An early decision is especially important if the defendant is in custody.

It may sometimes be appropriate to change the decision of the original charging prosecutor (or of the police where they authorised charge). Where a prosecutor comes to the view that the original decision was fundamentally wrong, it is a matter of good practice to discuss the decision with a legal manager but every effort should be made to ensure that the proceedings are not delayed.

Methods of Termination
Before Conviction
There are several methods by which proceedings may be terminated prior to conviction.

When termination of proceedings takes place at court, a full note should be made of what was said by each of the parties and the court.

Prosecutors can terminate proceedings in the magistrates' court by:

• discontinuance - under section 23 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 ('s23');
• applying to withdraw the summons or charge; or
• offering no evidence

Prosecutors can terminate proceedings in the Crown Court by:

• discontinuance under section 23A Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 ('s23A');
• offering no evidence in court;
• leaving an indictment or counts to lie on the file;
• applying for a motion to quash the indictment; or
• inviting the Attorney General to enter a nolle prosequi.

Discontinuance

The Power to Discontinue
Timely termination of proceedings is in the interests of justice.

Sections 23 and 23A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (“the POA”) give prosecutors the power to discontinue proceedings without the need to obtain the leave of the court. Discontinuance avoids the need for a court hearing and the unnecessary attendance of the parties. It enables a defendant in custody to be released immediately without the need to wait until the next hearing.

For these reasons, and particularly where it is intended to discontinue the entire proceedings, the preferred method of termination is discontinuance whenever possible.


Can a person be convicted without evidence? The simple answer is, “no.” You cannot be convicted of a crime without evidence.

Remember, there was no evidence presented in this case, either by the "State of Pakistan" which brought the charges, or by the defendant who was not presented to the court, and whose statement is never presented to the court as evidence.

 

[Xestan]

Reema Omar gave excellent explanation about these points.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097289300414465

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097947848105990

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098335426994176

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098735848808453

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207099030892888065

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207100143612416000

Another interesting observation:

https://twitter.com/ehmadliveson/status/1207179844162916352

 

[Verve]

@crankthatskunk

How about breach of Article 10 by the judges?

Reema Omar gave excellent explanation about these points.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097289300414465

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097947848105990

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098335426994176

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098735848808453

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207099030892888065

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207100143612416000

Another interesting observation:

https://twitter.com/ehmadliveson/status/1207179844162916352

Ironic isn't it that the same SC judges had no issue validating the 1999 coup but gave an opposite opinion on the same article when they were removed in 2007 Emergency!

Reema needs to try harder!

 

[crankthatskunk]

Reema Omar gave excellent explanation about these points.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097289300414465

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207097947848105990

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098335426994176

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207098735848808453

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207099030892888065

https://twitter.com/x/status/1207100143612416000

Another interesting observation:

https://twitter.com/ehmadliveson/status/1207179844162916352

I don't know who Reema is, but the fact that it is published in Dawn provides ample proofs in itself why she is presenting such point of view, which is false, inaccurate and misleading.

She said that Musharaf is charged for "False. Musharraf was charged on many counts, incl. subverting the constitution/holding it in abeyance, which squarely fall under Art 6".

I have already shown that the two conditions "suspend or hold in abeyance," were added by 18th amendment, with one and one purpose only to "target" General Musharaf. This were bad intentions and applied retrospectively.
If any thing the twisting by the judges shows their modus operandi.

@crankthatskunk

How about breach of Article 10 by the judges?



Ironic isn't it that the same SC judges had no issue validating the 1999 coup but gave an opposite opinion on the same article when they were removed in 2007 Emergency!

Reema needs to try harder!

I have written many times that the trial wasn't fair, which is covered by Article 10 of Pakistani constitution.

10A.Right to fair trial:

For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.

Without any shadow of a doubt General Musharaf wasn't offered a fair trial and due process. The fact that the judges became party to the case, in itself land this trial as unfair.

More relevant and interesting is Article 12 of the constitution of Pakistan, which states;


12 Protection against retrospective punishment

(1) No law shall authorize the punishment of a person:-
(a) for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission; or
(b) for an offence by a penalty greater than, or of a kind different from, the penalty prescribed by law for that offence at the time the offence was committed.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) or in Article 270 shall apply to any law making acts of abrogation or subversion of a Constitution in force in Pakistan at any time since the twenty-third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, an offence.

S 12 (1) (a) hits the hammer on the head, "for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission;.

Reading in to Section 12 (2) is even more devastating for the judges and CJ Khosa.
This case is traversity of justice.

 

[Verve]

(2) Nothing in clause (1) or in Article 270 shall apply to any law making acts of abrogation or subversion of a Constitution in force in Pakistan at any time since the twenty-third day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, an offence.

My understanding is that this 12 (2) allows retrospective application of all new laws relating to acts of abrogation and subversion of Constitution, that is Article 6. This is an exception to application of 12 (1).

So if in future a law is passed that corruption by office holders is abrogation and subversion of the constitution, no one will be able to say that it can't be applied retrospectively. And corruption by office holders will be High Treason with death penalty.

One carefully worded new article required leading to death penalties of all corrupt officials, past and present. This will over rule all the amnesty schemes too.

@Mangus Ortus Novem ... 2/3 is a must!