Former President General Pervez Musharraf
Islamabad … News Time
The special court has ruled in the detailed judgment of the serious treason case that former military president Pervez Musharraf should be sentenced to five times for five offenses of breaking the constitution. In which 2 judges declared the ex-president treason and ordered them to be executed separately on each charge. A three-member bench of the special court in the federal capital, Islamabad, sentenced him to death under Article 6 in a brief verdict in the Pervez Musharraf serious treason case on December 17.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Waqar Seth of the Peshawar High Court, Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court and Justice Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court passed the verdict with a majority of 2. Subsequently, a detailed verdict containing 169 pages of the case was issued, including a 44-page controversial note by Justice Nazar Akbar. A detailed judgment of the court has been written by Justice Waqar Seth while he and Shahid Karim have pronounced the death sentence. However, Justice Shahid Karim agreed with the sentence but he disagreed with paragraph 66 contained in the judgment, in the case of Musharraf’s death, it was mentioned that he would be dragged to the D-square and hanged for 3 days. Justice Shahid Karim said, “I disagree with Mr. President (Head Bench) because his law has no basis and doing so will have a negative impact for this court,” I think it is enough to convict the offender.
Key points of the decision:
According to the detailed judgment, Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth and Justice Shahid Karim awarded death sentence to Pervez Musharraf.
Justice Nazar Akbar disagreed with the verdict in the treason case and acquitted Pervez Musharraf.
The majority decision said that law enforcement should try their best to arrest Pervez Musharraf.
As per the decision, make sure that the law enforcement agency executes Musharraf according to the law.
The verdict stated that it was clear from the documents submitted that all the charges against the accused have been proved without any doubt.
It said that the accused is sentenced to death on each charge separately.
Justice Waqar ruled that if Musharraf died before his execution, his body should be brought to De Chowk and hanged there for 3 days.
Justice Shahid Karim disagreed with Justice Waqar’s decision.
According to the decision, Musharraf should also take action against the escapees.
The decision said it was the first case of its kind.
In the verdict, Pervez Musharraf was charged with 5, which, on the basis of his conviction, ordered the death sentence on each charge.
The court said the death sentence was pronounced in his absence after the accused was absconding.
Pervez Musharraf passed the constitution on November 3, 2007, according to the decision.
The special court was set up on November 20, 2013, and on March 31, 2014, the court imposed an indictment on Musharraf.
The detailed decision stated that the special court declared Musharraf as a fugitive on June 19, 2016.
The decision stated that the special court was restructured six times and the case started in 2013 and ended six years later.
The detailed decision stated that Pervez Musharraf was given a more transparent trial than his favor.
According to the prosecution’s evidence, according to the prosecution’s evidence, the accused deserves exemplary punishment; the court sends the accused to death.
The decision stated that if the Supreme Court had not introduced the ideological requirement, the nation would not have to see this day.
According to the detailed verdict, the trust officer committed a serious treason crime because of the need for ideology.
The majority decision stated that we have come to the conclusion that the offense committed under Article 6 falls under the guise of serious treason.
The court ruled that Article 6 is the protector of the constitution that challenges the lifetime agreement between the state and its citizens.
5 charges against Musharraf:
First, on November 3, 2007, as the Chief of Army Staff in Rawalpindi, you issued a Decree 2007 declaring the imposition of emergency and illegally. That led to the suspension of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1973, unconstitutionally and illegally and as a result it affected the Constitution and subsequently committed a felony, a felony punishable under the Serious Conviction Act (1973).
Secondly, on November 3, 2007, as Chief of Army Staff in Rawalpindi, you issued an unconstitutional and illegal order of Interim Constitution Order No.1 of 2007 which unconstitutionally and illegally authorized the President from time to time to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and by imposing the fundamental rights of Articles 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 25 of the Constitution, you were affected by the Constitution, ss a result, there was a serious offense of treason, which is a punishable offense under the Serious Treason (Crime) Act, 1973.
Third, on November 3, 2007, as President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Rawalpindi, you issued an oath to the judges from 2007. Introduced in the schedule as unconstitutional and illegal under which judges have to ban proclamation of emergency enforcement that they will act accordingly and as a result, several judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of Pakistan, were removed from the post. So you were affected by the Constitution and consequently committed a serious treason, which is a punishable offense under the Serious Treason (Crime) Act, 1973.
Fourth, on November 20, 2007, as the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Rawalpindi, you issued the unconstitutional and illegal Order 5 of the Constitution Amendment Order 2007. Resulting in unconstitutional and illegal amendments to Articles 175, 186A), 198, 218, 270 (B and 270C) and the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan affected Article 2A of 1973 by adding Article 270A and consequently committed a felony conviction which is a punishable offense under the Serious Treason (Crime) Act, 1973.
Fifth, on December 14, 2007, as the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Rawalpindi, you issued Order 6 of the Constitution Amendment Order 2007. The Constitution of the Republic of Pakistan was amended in 1973 and your Constitution took effect and consequently committed a felony conviction which is a punishable offense under the Serious Treason (Crime) Act, 1973.
Detailed court decision:
Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth and Justice Shahid Karim pronounced the death sentence, saying that the evidence presented proved that the accused committed the crime. The court ruled that a serious treason trial requires a constitution for these people who for any reason weaken the Constitution or try to weaken it, therefore, this court, after looking at the irrefutable, irrevocable and irrefutable evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused, concluded that the accused actually committed the crime and deserves exemplary punishment.
The court ruled that it was clear from the prosecution and the conduct of the accused that the case was committed, that since the commencement of the trial, the accused made a concerted effort and effort to delay, withdraw and in fact avoid it, at the same time, the decision also stated that it was his request that he could not reach the court to stand trial because of health problems or security risks.
According to the detailed decision if for a moment it is assumed that the top military command, including the core commanders is not involved. Then why they failed to defend and protect the 1973 constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and did not stop a man in uniform, at this time the Corps Commanders Committee, along with all other uniformed officers who guarded them at all times, are fully and equally involved in the prosecution and action of the accused.
Paragraph number 66 screenshot of the judgment:
The court ruled that we instruct law enforcement agencies to do their best to apprehend the perpetrator / offender and ensure that they are punished according to the law. And if he dies, his body should be dragged to D Chowk in Islamabad and hanged for 3 days. The judgment observed that the court observed that as a necessary logical consequence, we consider the accused guilty of the charges, at the same time; the verdict stated that the offender should be hanged on every charge until he dies.
The ruling written by Justice Waqar Ahmed Seth stated that a dictator can remain in power only until he disrupts the will of his people; the seizure of the duties of the government and other entities established by the constitution is equivalent to disobeying the constitution. The court ruled that an attempt to influence the judiciary, such as preventing them from working and / or taking an additional constitutional oath, is equivalent to defrauding the Constitution. According to the judicial verdict, details of the death sentence and this part of the verdict have not been described anywhere but because it is the first case of its kind. And the accused has been convicted and sentenced to death in his absence, so the sentence should be executed.
According to the detailed verdict, it would be better in favor of justice if anybody is involved in facilitating the escape of the accused. So they too should be brought under the purview of the law and if there are any criminal acts, they too should be investigated and acted in accordance with the law.
Differential Note:
In the judgment, Justice Nazar Akbar wrote the dissenting note, “With a humble legal understanding of justice and law, I carefully reviewed the proposed decision written by my brother Waqas Ahmed Seth and I went to my capable brothers. Let’s often disagree with the view. Justice Nazar Akbar wrote in his dissenting note that Pervez Musharraf’s move to enforce emergency on November 3, 2007 cannot be seen as a violation of Article 6 of the Constitution on the said date. The detachment notes that Article 6 did not apply to any of the actions of any individual except when the offense was committed, the constitution was repealed or the authority of an institution was taken into account. At that time, the abrogation of the constitution or the influence of the powers of an institution was considered serious treason.
Also, the dissenting note states that the words of suspension and interim suspension of the Constitution were not used in the definition of Article 6 of the Constitution till April 20, 2010. And they were introduced into the Constitution by the 18th Amendment two and a half years after committing a serious treason. In a dissenting note, Justice Nazar Akbar wrote that the definition of serious treason was updated after the 18th constitutional amendment in 2010. He wrote that Article 6 of the Constitution described serious treason as a crime, so without understanding its meaning this court could not issue a transparent decision. According to Justice Nazar Akbar, therefore, both the competent lawyers and my able brothers have relied on the meaning of ‘serious treason’ in the 10th edition of the Oxford Dictionary to define the words of serious treason.
