• Home
• /
• World

Courts take exception to Musharraf's absence in hearings

A sessions court in Islamabad has joined the special court trying former military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf on sedition charges to question a government's decision allowing him to leave the country.
Additional Sessions Judge Pervez Qadir Memon sought a report from capital's police chief on how the former general was facilitated to leave the country even though non-bailable warrants were issued against him in the murder case of Lal Masjid cleric Ghazi Abdul Rashid.

Prosecutor not consulted on departure> A judge has sought a report from police on how Musharraf was allowed to leave the country. > The home ministry has taken the plea that the Supreme Court last month ordered the removal of Musharraf's name from the exit control list. > However, legal experts claim the government has misinterpreted the Supreme Court judgment . > A Public Prosecutor Akram tells the court he was not consulted on Musharraf's departure. > So far there is no claim of responsibility for the attack. > Caucasus provinces have been plagued by violence Ud magna faciliquat, si Minciduis adion hendiat ionsed > So far there is no claim of responsibility for thed by violened by violene attack.

The home ministry submitted in both courts that the Supreme Court in its judgment last month had ordered the removal of his name from the exit control list (ECL). Under another high court judgment, the government could not restrict freedom of movement of any person who was not put on the list by a court order.
It how emerged in both courts that the government had misinterpreted the Supreme Court judgment on removal of Musharraf's name from the ECL. In its detailed verdict, the Supreme Court had left the matter to the government or the special court to decide whether Musharraf be kept on the list or not. The government's counsel failed to plead before the Supreme Court that Musharraf faced criminal cases including a sedition case under Article 6.
The special court took strong notice of Musharraf's absence in the hearing in sedition case on March 31. Public Prosecutor Akram Shaikh informed the court that he was not consulted by the government, adding that if there was any ambiguity about the Supreme Court ruling, the government could have referred the matter to the special court.
The 13-page detailed judgment by the Supreme Court noted that the federal government did not seem enthusiastic to oppose Musharraf's request for removal of name from the ECL.
The special court issued summons to the former general, asking him to return by April 19 and present his defence on sedition charges. The prosecution represented by Shaikh Akram advocate sought cancellation of his bail and the guaranty provided by Musharraf's former aide retired Major-General Rashid Qureshi for the bail. Both the special court and the additional sessions judge issued notices to the guarantors for explanation why the guarantee provided by them should not be forfeited.
Akram Shaikh in a TV interview said the prosecution had concluded its submissions by September 14 after producing witnesses and more than 90 documentary evidence including Musharraf's signed and handwritten orders which showed that he alone was responsible for imposing the emergency. The court then asked the defence to present its case. However, it deferred the hearing to decide another petition by Musharraf's counsel implicating former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, ex-chief justice Abdul Hamid Dogar and law minister Zahid Hamid, claiming they along with a large number of civil and military officials were consulted before imposing emergency. Last month, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani said on Saturday the government's move to allow Musharraf to leave the country even while he was facing trial in sedition and Benazir Bhutto murder cases made the Article 6 redundant. The government should amended the Constitution removing the Article 6 from the basic document, he remarked. - news@khaleejtimes.com

• Pakistan