Musharraf treason case: prosecution prays special court to pronounce judgement

The prosecution in Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) high treason case has prayed to the Special Court to conclude the trial and pronounce its judgment on basis of available record. The prosecution team on Saturday filed an application under Section 6(1)(d) & Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 read with the judgments and observations of the Supreme Court in Abdul Hameed Dogar vs federal government and Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) vs Nadeem Ahmed cases for concluding the pending trial and pronouncing of the judgment.
It is the stance of prosecution that the accused (Pervez Musharraf) has availed full opportunity of cross-examining all the prosecution witnesses and now has been grossly abusing the process of the Special Court and thus displayed a contumacious conduct. According to the prosecution, Musharraf has categorically made statement to the media abroad that he left the country with the help of his institution [army] therefore casting aspersions on Armed Forces and the then Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif (retd).
The prosecution says that the case primarily was for imposition of martial law, abrogating the Constitution, detaining over 100 judges of the superior courts without any lawful authority, promulgating Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2007, resulting in reconstituting the entire superior judiciary and then conferring the powers for restoring the Constitution to himself. "The accused has tried to embarrass the country and has posed him to be an individual more powerful than any other constitutional institution."
The prosecution maintained that the instant proceedings in Special Court are covered by provision of special law, which lays down the entire manner of regulating proceedings of those who are present and of those who choose to stay away from the court. The law also deals with persons having poor health and declares it not to be a valid ground for adjournment of the case. The law also mandates the Special Court to pass a judgment notwithstanding the presence or otherwise of the accused.
The Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act 1976 says, "No trial before the Special Court shall be adjourned for any purpose unless the Special Court is of opinion that the adjournment is necessary in the interests of justice and, in particular, no trial shall be adjourned by reason of the absence of any accused person due to illness, or if the absence of the accused or his counsel has been brought about by the accused person himself, or if the behaviour of the accused person prior to such absence has been, in the opinion of the Special Court, such as to impede the course of justice but, in any such case, the Special Court shall proceed with the trial after taking necessary steps to appoint an advocate to defend any such accused person."
The prosecution contended that the interest of justice can never be aligned with delay in trial rather the interest of justice is served only by conclusion of the case. The prosecution said in the Abdul Hameed Dogar case (PLD 2016 SC 454) the Supreme Court directed "to proceed with the trial with all convenient dispatch and without any unnecessary delay." It has requested the Special Court to abide by the order of the apex court.