ISLAMABAD: Indicating the federal government’s unwillingness to widen the scope of the treason case against retired general Pervez Musharraf, lead prosecutor Akram Sheikh said on Wednesday that it was not feasible to implicate the civilian and military officials who were alleged to have abetted the dictator in his proclamation of emergency in 2007.

Responding to arguments made by defence counsel Farogh Nasim a day earlier, Sheikh denied the existence of any record proving that Musharraf had consulted civil or military leaders prior to taking the unconstitutional steps of November 3, 2007.

“There is no record available with the Prime Minister Secretariat regarding any summary or advice issued for imposing the emergency,” Sheikh said. In normal circumstances, whenever the president is ‘advised’ by the prime minister on any matter, a summary is sent via the PM Secretariat to the president’s secretary general. In this particular case, Sheikh claims, no such communiqué exists.

It is important to remember that the order signed by Musharraf — who was also chief of army staff at the time — explicitly states that a state of emergency was declared in the country following a consultative meeting, which was attended by the prime minister, governors of all the four provinces, the vice chief, joint chiefs, corps commanders and the heads of the navy and air force, at the time.

Laying the burden of proof on Musharraf’s legal team, Sheikh argued that it was up to the accused to field evidence against those they were accusing. “It will be unconstitutional for the federal government to initiate proceedings against anyone merely based on allegations, without any tangible evidence,” he added.

In a written reply submitted to the Special Court, the prosecution maintained that the defendant’s application – asking to widen the scope of the treason case – had been filed prematurely, as formal proceedings against him had not been initiated and no witnesses had testified to the involvement of other individuals in the actions of Nov 3, 2007.

Sheikh insisted that the application was simply a delaying tactic and had not been filed “in good faith”. He also asked the court to fix a date for the commencement of the trial of Pervez Musharraf.

Meanwhile, Musharraf’s counsel Farogh Nasim sought an adjournment, citing other professional commitments. At his request, the court adjourned the matter until April 24. However, Justice Faisal Arab reminded the counsel that from that day the court would take up the matter on a daily basis.

The bench also fixed April 18 for an announcement on an application challenging the appointment of Akram Sheikh as lead prosecutor.

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.