ISLAMABAD: The special court seized with a high treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on Monday decided to order the formation of a commission to record his statement and adjourned the proceedings till mid-November.

The composition of the commission and its scope is yet to be decided though in the past such commissions comprised judicial officers and support staff.

“This is our considered opinion,” ruled the three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Yawar Ali, Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) Tahira Safdar and Justice Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court (SHC).

The bench stated that if anyone had objections to the formation of the commission, they could challenge it in the high court. It maintained that scope and composition of the commission would be decided later.

Defence counsel allowed to raise objections at next hearing in treason case

The treason case, which was instituted against the ex-army chief in December 2013 for imposing a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007, has suffered delays for multiple reasons. However, the trial came to a standstill after he moved abroad in 2016 and never returned despite being summoned by court and declared absconder in the treason case.

Initially retired Gen Musharraf, through his previous counsel, had cited security reasons for his reluctance to appear before the special court.

However, Barrister Salman Safdar, the newly appointed defence counsel, recently informed the bench that his client was willing to appear before the court. It was due to his health condition that he was unable to travel back to Pakistan, the defence counsel said.

Justice Yawar Ali inquired whether the court could proceed without recording his statement under Section 342 of the criminal procedure code in which generally the accused rebuts the allegations and evidence submitted by the prosecution against him.

In response, Barrister Safdar said that retired Gen Musharraf was facing serious health issues.

“The accused is in a foreign country right now. According to his lawyer, he is very ill,” Justice Ali noted.

When the prosecution lawyer argued, “Pervez Musharraf’s previous record is before us. He is not ready to record a statement via video link”, the court observed, “We are told that Musharraf cannot appear in court due to his illness but he wishes to record his statement in the treason case.”

Subsequently, the court ordered the formation of a commission that will travel abroad to record the former military dictator’s statement in the high treason case.

When Barrister Safdar raised an objection arguing that the court did not seek assistance on the constitution of the commission, Justice Ali reminded him he could raise this point at the next hearing.

Justice Ali said his retirement was due next Monday (Oct 22) and the case proceeding would resume on November 14. He reminded the defence counsel that he could take this plea against the next presiding officer.

Earlier in a written statement, the counsel apprised the special court that he consulted Gen Musharraf and explained him “the object and purpose of recording his statement under section 342 of the CrPC in detail and sought instruction as to whether the defendant would like to get such statement recorded via Skype/video link.”

According to the statement, Gen Musharraf “expressed his desire to return to Pakistan once his medical condition enabled him to do so and to get recorded his statement under section 342 [of the] CrPC in his physical presence.”

“Moreover, he [Gen Musharraf] wished that this honourable court appreciate the gravity of the charges against him and that crucial significance be granted to the fact that his narrative will be crucial in uncovering the truth,” the statement added, “finally, the defendant expressed that his worsening health is the only factor preventing him from returning to his homeland.”

Later talking to Dawn, Barrister Safdar said he was waiting for the written order of the special court regarding the formation of the commission and after examining the said order, he would seek instruction from his client to challenge it before the appropriate forum.

Published in Dawn, October 16th, 2018

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.