ISLAMABAD: A lawyer defending retired General Pervez Musharraf in the high treason case said on Monday that the former president could have been court-martialled in 2008 when he was subject to the army act, but certain quarters circumvented it so that he could be tried by civilian judges instead of a military court.

“The federal government could have commenced proceedings of high treason against Gen Musharraf in December 2008 after the former army chief had resigned and could be court-martialled for holding the Constitution in abeyance, but it circumvented the trial in order to take away the legal defence available to him,” Dr Khalid Ranjha, counsel for Gen Musharraf, said during the hearing of a petition seeking the transfer of high treason case from the special court to a military court.

“Such circumvention is not allowed because the defence available to an accused cannot be taken away if provided under the law” he said, adding: “At the time when Gen Musharraf could have been court-martialled he was given ‘guard of honour’ and allowed to leave the presidency in a graceful manner. And now after a lapse of six years, the government filed the complaint against him with mala fide intention.”

Advocate Ranjha insisted that Gen Musharraf was still subject to the army act and could be court-martialled for any offence, including high treason. “Under the Act 10 of 1977, high treason has been included in the schedule of offences triable by the military court.”

Replying to objections raised by the prosecution that the former military ruler could have been tried by a military court within six months of his retirement, but after the lapse of six years he could only be tried by the special court, the counsel said Gen Musharraf was in the country for a few months after leaving the presidency and was available for trial.

He said the government was responsible for the delay and now opposing the transfer of the case to the military court because of the fear that Gen Musharraf would get some relief from it.

It was the 20th hearing of the high treason case on Monday, and as usual a war of words between the prosecution and the defence was witnessed. Akram Sheikh, head of the prosecution team, exchanged hot words with Rana Ijaz, a defence lawyer.

Rana Ijaz later filed in the special court a complaint accusing Mr Sheikh of directing officials of the special branch to arrest him inside the courtroom. He alleged that the officials had tried to arrest him, but Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif, another counsel for Gen Musharraf, intervened and reminded them that it was against decorum of the court.

Akram Sheikh also filed a complaint alleging that the defence lawyers had been harassing him since the commencement of treason trial proceedings on December 24. He requested the court to summon CCTV footage to ascertain who had initiated Monday’s brawl.

Perturbed by the attitude of lawyers from both sides, Justice Faisal Arab, head of the three-judge special court, regretted that he had never seen such a disorder in the high courts at Peshawar, Quetta, Lahore and Karachi. He advised lawyers not to act like students of schools and colleges.

Perhaps this was the reason that Advocate Ranjha, at the very outset, suggested to the court to adjourn the proceedings, saying that “a judge should avoid hearing when he is not in a good mood”.