Musharraf's trial under Article 6? new government may take different view: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Mon-day observed that a possibility exists that the newly-elected government may take a view different from that of the caretakers on initiating a treason case against former President Pervez Musharraf. The caretakers had refused to file treason charges against former President arguing that the elected government may opt for another plea in the current matter.
The three-member bench headed by Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja resumed the hearing of five identical petitions seeking initiation of a treason case against Pervez Musharraf. "The process of transfer of power to the newly-elected government would be completed soon and it is necessary to be aware of the stance of the federal government in the instant matter as it can adopt a stance different from that of the caretaker government," the bench said.
The court emphasised that the parliament's view is crucial to the case, adding that parliament had legislated the punishment for treason and the Federal Interior Secretary must be the complainant in treason cases. During the course of proceedings, A. K. Dogar, the counsel for Moulvi Iqbal Haider, one of the petitioners in the matter, contented that treason was a constitutional crime and the constitution had determined its penalty. He added that Musharraf is not an accused but stood convicted and the court had to announce his conviction.
Dogar further contented that the President of Pakistan could not pardon a person charged under Article 6 of the constitution. Ahmed Raza Qasuri, the counsel for Musharraf, contended that his client's objective was to secure the state. The court adjourned proceedings of the case till May 22. Meanwhile, an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) of Rawalpindi on Monday granted bail to Musharraf in Benazir Bhutto murder case. ATC Judge Habib-ur-Rehman, while hearing Musharraf's bail plea filed by his counsel Salman Safdar, approved his plea with directives to submit two surety bonds worth Rs 1 million each. Earlier, the ATC reserved its verdict over Musharraf's bail plea in the case.
During the hearing, the counsel for Musharraf said his client could not be held responsible for not carrying out Benazir Bhutto autopsy as it was Asif Ali Zardari, the spouse of the late Benazir Bhutto, who had decided not to conduct her post-mortem. He also said that it was only Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) which had held Musharraf responsible for assassination of Benazir Bhutto, adding that investigation of Benazir's murder case was not the mandate of the FIA.
The counsel told the court that why Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, former Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Ejaz Shah and Hamid Gul were not made part of the investigation even though Benazir had told American journalist Mark Siegel that they would be held responsible for her death if something happened to her. Safdar further demanded that the court be told who was responsible for plotting to kill Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf's lawyer argued that this was a politically motivated case and the onus of responsibility of Benazir's security was with the officers on duty, not on Musharraf. Earlier, the FIA's prosecutor Chaudhry Azhar had objected to the bail plea on grounds that Musharraf might flee the country in case he was granted bail; after which the court had reserved its decision.