Attorney General of Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan Tuesday said that General (r) Pervez Musharraf, who has been awarded death sentence in a high treason case, was not given a fair trial, adding that the case against former president was ‘void from the beginning’.
“President Musharraf did not get an opportunity to record his statement according to Section 342,” he told a press conference in Islamabad late Tuesday. “He did not get an opportunity to present his testimony and witnesses,” he said, and questioned why the decision was issued ‘in haste’. “Even the trial was conducted in absentia, which is not a routine matter,” he said. “Every person is guaranteed a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution,” said the attorney general. “A trial should not just be fair but must also be seen to be fair,” he added.
He said this government has the viewpoint where it believes every person, no matter their misdeeds, must be provided justice. “The government will stand up against injustice when it sees an accused is not provided justice. Injustice is a curse for the country. This is what constitutional deviation is. When judgments are given against the constitution. What else can we call such a judgment where a mandatory requirement, a person’s fundamental right under Article 10-A, is deviated from?” said AG Khan.
Further criticising the verdict, the attorney general said that the courts had operated ‘outside the scope of the law’. “If the courts are independent and free, this does mean that they decide a verdict outside the scope of the law. It does not mean they do not give a person their fundamental right. And most importantly, if a person is not allowed to produce evidence, there can be no more injustice committed against the person than what we have witnessed in this case,” he said.
The attorney general said a written copy of the short order had not been issued, which is ‘unbelievable and unprecedented’. He said a future course of action shall be decided after going through the written verdict.
AG Khan, providing a brief backdrop of the circumstances that led to the verdict, said that the case was launched on the Supreme Court’s directions, under Article 6 of the Constitution which pertains to high treason. “A special court was then formed and then a complainant – who was an interior secretary – filed a complaint that Musharraf had violated the constitution and that the matter falls within Article 6, therefore a high treason case must be made against him.” He recalled that Musharraf was in Pakistan when the charges against him were announced and had filed some petitions requesting that others involved in the decision to impose an emergency also be made a party to the case.
AG Khan said that following the 18th Amendment, in which Article 90 was modified, the president was no longer given the authority by the federal government to file a complaint. “Because he could not file a complaint, the action taken against Musharraf was void from the beginning and could not have been carried out lawfully,” he said. “Musharraf is bed-ridden and is in the ICU at a hospital. So this is another major issue: when you know a person is hospitalised, in his absence was it right to announce this judgment or not?” he said, as he continued to explore the legality of the verdict.
He said that the government wished to change its team at one point in the case, so that ‘mistakes made by the past governments’ can be rectified. “[The previous] team was not ready to make those changes.”
He said when the team was swapped out, the court reacted very strongly and issued immediate directives to get the case moving ‘irrespective of the situation’.
AG Khan then said that the last team had filed ‘written arguments after its removal’ and the court based their decision on those arguments. “When the case was fixed, the additional attorney general was sent by me to argue the case, but the court sat him down saying, ‘You have not been appointed by the federal government’ whereas an additional attorney general is an appointed officer under the law. Despite that, the court refused to listen to him and said a new team of senior lawyers must be formed,” said AG Khan.
He said the new team had requested the court for some time to study the case as they had just been appointed but the court refused and told them to argue or the verdict will be announced.
Expanding on what constitutes a fair trial, AG Khan said that the court was requested to allow that the statement of the accused be recorded. “The court said you must bring him to Pakistan or else we will not record a statement.”
The attorney general said entire hearings had been held via video link and that many people had recorded their statements from abroad in various cases in the past. “When it came to [Musharraf] and when the court was told he is unable to travel, the court refused the request,” he said, adding that a request for a commission to be formed to go collect the statement was also rejected by the court.
“When the lawyers wished to record evidence, that too was refused. When Chaudhry Shujaat expressed willingness to be made a party to the case, that, again, was refused.” AG Khan said various applications were also submitted requesting that various generals and bureaucrats be made a party to the case, but they, too, were rejected by the court. “Whenever a conspiracy is hatched, it is an action undertaken by multiple people. And if this was a conspiracy, it could only be proved in the presence of the others. If they were not present this means it was a directed, personal attack or action against one person.”
Earlier, PM’s Special Assistant on Information Firdous Ashiq Awan also addressed the media and said the government will consult its legal team before commenting on the special court’s decision. “The prime minister is coming back on Wednesday; he will see the verdict’s legal framework,” she added.
Federal Minister for Science and Technology Fawad Chaudhry urged to void such verdicts which increase the gap between the nation and institutions.
In a Twitter message, he said it is the time to unite the country. He questioned, “What is the benefits of such decisions that increase gaps in the nation and institutions? I kept insisting for holding dialogues to move towards a new deal. All should show mercy to the country as it is not in the interest of anyone to let down each other,” he said.
Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid said the verdict will create differences and push Pakistan towards conflict. “The decision will be putting us on a path that will lead to conflict. Those who looted Pakistan are getting bail while those who served the country are being convicted,” he said.
He said Prime Minister Imran will have a look at the entire situation when he returns. He said such incidents do not go away easily. “If you insult an institution which is carrying the entire country, it will react,” he said.
