ISLAMABAD: Despite his indictment, the Special Court constituted to try retired general Pervez Musharraf for high treason could not commence formal trial proceedings thanks to his erstwhile legal team’s delaying tactics.

On Tuesday, Musharraf’s new counsel, Barrister Farogh Nasim wrapped up arguments on a petition filed by the former president’s legal team, led by legal wizard Sharifuddin Pirzada. Nasim joined Musharraf’s defence after the previous team boycotted proceedings of the Special Court.

As per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), once an accused party is indicted, a formal trial, with evidence and witnesses, should begin.

Advocate Ikram Chaudhry, a senior prosecutor in the trial, said two petitions were currently pending and, consequently, holding up Musharraf’s trial. The first seeks to make all those who helped Musharraf impose emergency on Nov 3, 2007 respondents in the treason case. The other petition relates to amendments in the Special Court Act 1976. However, Chaudhry was hopeful that once the petitions were dealt with, the Special Court would initiate formal legal proceedings against the former military ruler by next week.

On Tuesday, Nasim accused the prosecution of deliberately keeping an inquiry report from the defence counsel.

“Under Article 19 of the Constitution, every citizen of Pakistan has the right to access information in the public domain. In this particular case, a man is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that has been kept deliberately hidden,” he said, adding that if the prosecution was reluctant to share the inquiry report – which was the basis for the high treason case – then the court could quash the entire process.

Referring to a newspaper report published on March 9, Nasim maintained that FIA Director Hussain Asghar, who was one of the four members of the team charged with investigating the treason case, opposed the singling out of Musharraf and recommended that the scope of the trial be widened to include those who abetted him when he declared a state of emergency in the country in November 2007.

Citing the proclamation that bought the emergency into effect, Nasim argued that the measure was taken after a meeting which was attended by “the prime minister, governors of all four provinces, corps commanders, the joint chiefs and the heads of all three armed forces”. Referring to the newspaper report, he said those mentioned in the proclamation should have been named as co-accused or abettors in the complaint filed by the government before the Special Court.

Even the federal secretaries who endorsed and executed the illegal orders of the military ruler have not been implicated, he maintained.

The counsel said the federal government had not denied or rebutted the news story. It is legal convention that if a news report is not rebutted or denied, it becomes undisputed evidence.

He asked the court to call for the inquiry report, as well as Hussain Asghar, the alleged author of a dissenting note that opposed only trying Musharraf for the events of November 2007.

Prosecuting attorney Akram Sheikh contended that Nasim, like his predecessors, was merely delaying the inevitable on the basis of conjecture. When he argued that the former military ruler was not entitled to examine the inquiry report, Justice Faisal Arab reminded him that it was up to the court to adjudicate on such matters. Sheikh conceded and agreed to produce the report before the court, but not for the benefit of the accused.

The bench had already dismissed an identical application seeking the trial of Musharraf’s aides and abettors, he said, adding that a detailed reply to petitions seeking to widen the scope of the treason trial would be filed by Wednesday.