IHC stays special court verdict relating to trial of Musharraf's abettors

Published December 23, 2014
Former president Pervez Musharraf - AFP/File
Former president Pervez Musharraf - AFP/File

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday stayed the special court's Nov 21 order pertaining to inclusion of the names of former premier Shaukat Aziz, former law minister Zahid Hamid and former Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as former military ruler Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf's accomplices in the treason trial.

The decision was announced by Justice Athar Minallah in response to applications filed by Dogar and Hamid's counsels in the IHC.

In his petition before the IHC, Hamid — who was the law minister in Musharraf’s cabinet when the former army strongman imposed a state of emergency on November 3, 2007— had not only distanced himself from the act itself, but also insisted on a ‘solo trial’ for the former president.

Examine: Zahid Hamid challenges special court order terming him ‘abettor’

Meanwhile, Justice Dogar had insisted in his application that he had no role in the imposition of emergency on Nov 3, 2007.

Take a look: Dogar challenges special court verdict

After issuing the order, the case's hearing was subsequently adjourned to Feb 3.

On Nov 21, the special court hearing the treason case against Musharraf had included Aziz, Hamid and former CJ Dogar as Musharraf's abettors in the treason trial.

The order had come as the court disposed of a request filed by the former president calling for the trial of abettors during the November 3 actions.

Musharraf had also demanded that the civilian leadership and the military authorities that allegedly abetted in the imposition of the November 3, 2007 emergency should also be tried along with him.

According to the proclamation issued for the November 3 emergency, Musharraf imposed the emergency after consulting the then prime minister, the governors of all four provinces and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff committee, the chiefs of the armed forces, the vice-chief of army staff and the corps commanders of the Pakistan Army.

Read more: Special court partially okays trial of Musharraf's abettors

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...