Musharraf’s attorney offers himself for punishment

Published
14

ISLAMABAD: The proceedings of treason trial took a dramatic turn on Wednesday when an attorney of retired Gen Pervez Musharraf offered himself for punishment in place of the former president even though the special court has yet to indict the former dictator for high treason.

Advocate Rana Ijaz Ahmed, who was law minister of Punjab in the Musharraf regime, asked the court to hang him or sentence him for life as envisaged in the High Treason Punishment Act 1973 for abrogating the Constitution.

“The former president is admitted to hospital. I served with him as provincial law minister and it will be an honour for me if the court may announce any sentence for me in place of Gen Musharraf,” he said, adding: “I am a true friend of Gen Musharraf and want to prove that a friend in need is a friend indeed.”

In an emotional tone, Mr Ijaz said the court did not mind him sleeping and snoring inside the courtroom for which he was thankful to the honourable judges. “Today I am in fresh mood and have decided to experience jail lockup.”

But Justice Faisal Arab of the Sindh High Court, who heads the three-judge special court, reminded him that Gen Musharraf had not made any confessional statement, rather the defence counsel had challenged jurisdiction of the court.

The court then took up an application filed by Dr Khalid Ranjha seeking transfer of the high treason case to a military court.

Advocate Akram Sheikh, head of the prosecution team, argued that being an accused in the case Gen Musharraf could neither be restored to his rank for the purpose of his court martial in terms of section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 nor did the PAA practically permit the court martial of an army chief.

He said the accused was falsely claiming that he must be tried under the PAA since the trial under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 was provided in the PAA by an amendment called “Act X of 1977, Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 1977”.

“This claim of the accused is result of misreading of the PAA 1977. Mere perusal of sections 1 and 2 of Act X of 1977 makes it crystal clear that the application seeking transfer of trial to the military court is misconceived and, therefore, liable to be dismissed,” Mr Sheikh argued.

According to him, high treason is a constitutional offence which is punishable under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 and Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, and envisages the setting up of a special court with an exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence of high treason. A special court set up under section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, cannot be treated as an “ordinary court of criminal justice in Pakistan” as referred to under sub-section (7) of section 8 for trial of civil offences.

Opinion

Editorial

Fixing bond markets
Updated 01 Oct, 2026

Fixing bond markets

Pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, retail investors, and eventually, foreign investors must become bigger participants in the market.
Call centre rackets
01 Oct, 2026

Call centre rackets

A NUMBER of recent raids conducted by the authorities in different cities point to the growing threat fraudulent ...
Homeward bound
01 Oct, 2026

Homeward bound

FIVE months after Somali pirates captured an oil tanker carrying a 19-member multinational crew, Somali maritime...
Kashmir unresolved
Updated 30 Sep, 2026

Kashmir unresolved

The just solution lies in India addressing the issue through a trilateral dialogue involving the legitimate representatives of the Kashmiri people and Pakistan.
Water shortage
30 Sep, 2026

Water shortage

THAT the country is entering the Rabi season with an anticipated water shortage of nearly 25pc, the lowest carryover...
Young hearts
30 Sep, 2026

Young hearts

THE observance may have passed, but the message of World Heart Day should not fade with it. The occasion is a useful...