KARACHI: The counsel for retired Gen Pervez Musharraf has contended that the government’s contention that the former president would flee the country due to entailment of death penalty in the ‘high treason’ case was mere apprehension that could not be a ground for depriving him of exercising his fundamental right to travel freely.

This was one of the arguments in synopsis filed by Barrister Farogh Naseem on Saturday in the Sindh High Court that had reserved on Thursday the judgment on the former ruler’s plea to have his name removed from the exit control list (ECL).

A bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar reserved the verdict after hearing lengthy arguments of Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt and Barrister Naseem.

According to the AGP, the government could not take the risk of allowing the petitioner to leave the country because there was a great incentive for him to flee in view of the treason case that involved the death penalty.

Barrister Naseem referred to a case law (PLD 2011 Karachi 546) that held that mere apprehension that the petitioner could flee from the country was not a ground for depriving him of his right to travel.

He said the right to travel abroad could not be taken away unless the government could show that the applicant was going to meet enemies of the country, which could endanger the security of the state.

Barrister Naseem said the prosecutor in the Article 6 case had said that the petitioner was not being charged with disloyalty to the state but with violation of the Constitution.

Barrister Naseem contended that in none of Mr Musharraf’s cases had the trial court restrained him from going abroad. “In fact in the Article 6 case, the learned trial court vide order dated 31.3.14 has clearly held that the present petitioner is not being taken into custody, and there is no restriction on his movement.”

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2014