ISLAMABAD: As the prosecution on Thursday insisted that former military ruler Pervez Musharraf was the sole accused in the high treason case, his lawyers claimed that the imposition of the November 3, 2007, emergency was a collective act and some other individuals may be charged with holding the constitution in abeyance.

The court, however, observed that the defence lawyers “can only point out that the case may be made against any person as an abettor but it is up to the court to make a decision.”

Concluding his arguments on the application filed by Musharraf’s counsel for implicating co-accused in the high treason trial, Advocate Akram Sheikh contended before the three-judge special court headed by Justice Faisal Arab that the special court cannot implicate any person in the treason case on mere allegations.

Musharraf’s counsel says other individuals may be charged with holding the constitution in abeyance

He said a former attorney and close legal aide to Gen Musharraf in his statement recorded by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)had held Musharraf responsible for imposing the emergency.

He said former principal secretary law division retired Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal in his statement had categorically stated that he signed some documents related to the sacking and appointment of judges after the imposition of the emergency on the direction of the prime minister secretariat. He said the act of Justice Mian was “accessories after the offence” as it happened after commissioning of the offence. Therefore, it was not an act of abetment.

Advocate Sheikh said the then secretary cabinet had stated that he was not aware of any meeting of the federal cabinet about the imposition of the emergency.

Likewise, Mohsin Hafeez, former secretary to the president, said since Gen Musharraf had signed the proclamation of emergency in his capacity as the chief of army staff (COAS), the president office was not in the loop.

However, objecting to the arguments of advocate Sheikh, Musharraf’s lawyer Shaukat Hayat said the witnesses the prosecution had referred to were not produced in the witness box and were not cross examined. Therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon.

Barrister Farogh Nasim, the lead defence counsel, in a rejoinder to the arguments of the prosecution told the court that on November 4, 2007, the then prime minister Shaukat Aziz appeared in different television channels and admitted that Gen Musharraf had discussed the imposition of emergency with all the quarters concerned.

At this, advocate Sheikh suggested that the defence lawyers should produce the former prime minister before the court as an evidence.

Barrister Nasim said since the court was operating in accordance with the criminal procedure code (CrPC), it can direct the investigation agency to re-investigate the matter and include certain abettors or summon them.

He said the law empowered courts to pass such a direction to keep check on the ‘arbitrary’ decisions of the investigation officers as well as the prosecution.

The court adjourned further proceedings till Friday (today) when Barrister Nasim would continue his arguments.

Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2014