LAHORE, Dec 10 (APP): The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of a petition, filed by former president Pervez Musharraf, challenging formation and proceedings of special court in high treason case against him, till December 17.
The court directed the additional attorney general to appear on the next date of hearing after getting
instructions from secretary interior whether the notification/complaint could be withdrawn in the case.
The single bench comprising Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi heard the petition.
At the outset of the proceedings, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Ishtiaq A Khan presented Pervez
Musharraf treason case record, following a court query in this regard.
The court asked from the AAG where the Article 6 was applicable.
Whether declaring an emergency and abrogating the Constitution were not two different things, asked the court.
The court further questioned whether the government and the Constitution were not in place on
November 3, 2007, adding that what had been written in the Supreme Court order about it.
To which, Musharraf’s counsel submitted that the federal government was asked to take action on the
petitions, filed with the Supreme Court, while the notification released for the purpose stated that the
action would be initiated on the orders of the prime minister.
To a court query, the AAG stated that the attorney general would not appear in the case as he had
provided his services to Pervez Musharraf as his counsel.
Musharraf’s counsel submitted that an inquiry and action had been initiated against his client on the
orders of the then prime minister, who was directly aggrieved of Musharraf’s step.
He submitted that the federal government had assured the Supreme Court of action; therefore, the
notification should also be in the name of the government.
At this this stage, the court questioned that if the federal government had decided to take action
against Musharraf under Article 6, then why the investigations were required.
To which, the AAG replied that an inquiry should be conducted first and then investigations should
be carried out in the matter, but everything was started hurriedly.
The court inquired from the AAG whether the federal government could not withdraw the notification.
To which, the law officer stated that it was difficult as the case was in its last stages.
However, the court observed that why it was difficult?
If the foundation of any thing was wrong, then what would be the status of the structure. Abrogation of the Constitution and declaring an emergency were two different things, it observed, adding that Article 6 could only be applied if the Constitution was abrogated.
The court asked the law officer to consult the secretary interior or it would call him.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the proceedings till December 17 and directed the AAG to appear
on the next hearing after taking instructions from the secretary interior.