The Lahore High Court was told on Friday that the trial of Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) in absentia by a special court was violative of Article 10-A of the Constitution.
Extending his arguments before a full bench proceeding with petitions of Musharraf challenging his conviction and other related actions as amicus curiae, Barrister Ali Zafar said, the trial in absentia was abhorrent to all criminal justice system under the Pakistani law.
The bench adjourned hearing till January 13 and directed the law officer to present a summary about the formation of the special court and all other relevant record.
Ali Zafar argued, "If Section 9 of Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, is declared ultra vires then that will have consequences on final outcome of the judgment passed by the Special Court".
On a previous hearing, the bench headed by Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi had appointed Barrister Zafar as amicus curiae in the case seeking his assistance on law points raised in the petition.
He further submitted that the offence of high treason had been created under Article 6 of the Constitution but it did not provide for any punishment leaving it for the parliament to enact a law for this purpose.
He stated that under the law it was the federal government which was required to decide whether or not to file a complaint, to constitute a special court and also to authorize a person to file a complaint before the court. He explained that after the 18th amendment in 2010, the federal government had been defined as the "Prime Minister" and the "Cabinet", which meant that any act which had to be done under any law by the federal government must be through a decision by the Prime Minister and the cabinet, otherwise, it was unlawful.
Barrister Ali pointed out that there had been no cabinet decision to institute proceedings against Musharraf for high treason, nor for the constitution of the special court or authorizing a person for filing of a complaint. He said the record showed that the notification for the formation of the special court was issued by the then law ministry without any cabinet decision.
Comments
Comments are closed.