ISLAMABAD: Retired General Pervez Musharraf’s defence team finally pulled off a legal manoeuvre smoothly when on Monday it stayed away from the Special Court, allowing Barrister Farogh Naseem to quietly plead the case.

Most visitors to the court were surprised when none of Musharraf’s usual advocates turned up on Monday and the former dictator was accompanied by a new face — Farogh Naseem, a lawyer who is also a member of the MQM and even represents the party in the Senate.

In the past, Naseem has also represented Altaf Hussain in the Supreme Court.

The older lot, led by Sharifuddin Pirzada, who had till now represented Musharraf and dominated the courtroom with their antics, had boycotted the court.

That it was a decision that suited everyone was clear from the first moment.

Mr Naseem made it clear that he was not going to indulge in any theatrics and drama — he made no effort to challenge the trial or question the judges or the prosecution.

In contrast, the hostility of the previous team towards the bench and the prosecution team had made for a rowdy trial in the past.

Legal wizard Pirzada and his team had so far lost all the applications they had filed in the Supreme Court, Special Court and Islamabad High Court since December 23, 2013.

In the process, Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Ahmed Raza Kasuri and even the gentle Anwar Mansoor Khan had annoyed the three-judge court headed by Justice Faisal Arab of the Sindh High Court a number of times.

But Mr Naseem was on a charm offensive and it worked.

His presence itself brought down the temperatures.

“I will offer special prayers for the induction of Barrister Naseem as a defence lawyer,” said Akram Sheikh who had had shouting matches with Rana Ijaz and Kasuri.

“I expressed my gratitude to the accused for engaging Farogh Naseem,” he added.

The judges were equally pleased as Naseem assured them that there would be no misbehaviour from the defence side.

A relaxed Justice Arab said: “We don’t expect indecency from the lawyers, however some lawyers dislike some judges,” adding that “we had also experienced similar sentiments when we were practising as lawyers.”

At one point, he even remarked that he had known Naseem from an early age as he (Justice Arab) knew Naseem’s father.

The good mood did not simply extend towards Naseem; Mr Arab added that “it [the bad behaviour] was the individual act of the lawyers and we don’t think that it was done on his [Musharraf’s] behalf”.

By the end of the proceedings, the court had passed an order which said that the government had the power to remove Musharraf’s name from the ECL, adding that unless an accused is in custody, “a criminal court cannot restrict his movement. He can … get medical treatment at a medical facility of his choice”.

Some observers felt that had Mr Naseem not been there, the court might have appeared less gracious and lenient.

In fact, on the basis of anonymity, the previous defence team also argued that their boycott and the appearance of Mr Naseem was part of their strategy.

Having delayed the indictment for as long as possible, it was not time for others to take over and bring down temperatures.

But officially it was difficult to determine when the previous team had decided to boycott the court and who had brought Mr Naseem on board and when.

Publicly the previous legal team stayed off the radar on Monday.

Only Mr Kasuri made a public appearance outside the Special Court soon after proceedings ended.

He made it clear that he was there in his capacity as a member of the All Pakistan Muslim League, the political party of Mr Musharraf.

“We boycotted the court proceedings as we believe that the three-member bench has been dissolved after Justice Arab on March 28 declined to proceed further with the case,” he said.