On Wednesday, in a high treason case, a special court had sentenced the late military ruler Pervez Musharraf to death. The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan upheld this verdict.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Athar Minallah made up the four-judge panel that reviewed the appeals challenging the January 13, 2020, ruling by the Lahore High Court (LHC) that declared Musharraf’s death sentence, handed down on December 17, 2019, to be unconstitutional.
In a brief ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty and denied the petitions for review. Efforts to locate the retired general’s legal heirs were unsuccessful, the court noted.
In addition to overturning the sentence, the court ruled that the special court that imposed it was unconstitutional. Notices on the court proceedings were sent to Musharraf’s heirs at both their local and overseas residential addresses, according to the SC’s order. Both English and Urdu publications also ran the ads.
Both the possibility of hearing an appeal after the death of the individual and the question of whether Musharraf’s legal successors would be entitled to benefits in the event that the death penalty is affirmed were highlighted in the ruling by the highest court.
Additionally, the court noted that Musharraf’s heirs could not be reached despite multiple attempts. Under the circumstances, the court has decided to maintain the death punishment.
The events of the day
During the hearings, the court heard from Musharraf’s attorneys, Hamid Khan and Salman Safdar.
While Musharraf’s appeal was a “criminal appeal,” Hamid argued at the outset of the session that the plea before the SC was an attempt to reverse the LHC ruling, and so a “constitutional matter.”
He begged the highest court to handle the appeals independently. After then, Chief Justice Isa made the following observation: “In this particular case, the Lahore High Court’s jurisdiction and appeal are distinct issues.”
The court would rather hear Safdar’s arguments first, according to the top justice. The state’s attorney general, Aamir Rehman, spoke out against the former president’s appeal of sentencing.
In response to the chief justice’s question about his stance on Musharraf’s appeal, the lawyer reiterated his opposition.
According to Safdar’s claims, the family of the former military ruler has not issued any directives. Additionally, he informed the family that they had been approached more than ten times since November of last year, indicating that they were aware of the issue. The case was not predicated on any particular set of instructions. He made it clear that he was not speaking on behalf of Pervez Musharraf’s family.
When Safdar mentioned that the Supreme Court had also informed Musharraf through a newspaper ad, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah countered by saying that the court had sent notices to Musharraf directly. The lawyer assured the court that he could offer aid in two separate cases. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah then informed Safdar that, as a legal expert, he could only provide assistance to the court in this matter.
After this, the Chief Justice requested a brief recess, explaining that the case should be decided today by the highest court in the land.
As the hearing recommenced, CJP Isa made the observation that the lack of the ex-military dictator’s legal heirs prevents the court from hearing the lawyer representing him. “Decisions should not be based on assumptions,” he noted, emphasizing that the court was reluctant to exclude the heirs from any potential opportunities. “How can the court utilize 561-A?” he inquired.
Despite Safdar’s praise for the Supreme Court’s decision, he informed the court that Musharraf’s legitimate descendants do not live in Pakistan.
Safdar was questioned by the CJP about his concerns with the Lahore High Court. In response, the attorney stated that he never even shows up before the Supreme Court judge who presided over Musharraf’s LHC trial.
“I will certainly file reports in your chamber regarding this,” Safdar stated, but the CJP’s remark that “we do not call anyone in chamber” turned off Safdar.
According to Justice Athar Minallah, the court was ready to hear arguments from everyone who had a hand in putting the emergency order on Musharraf under Article 12. This prompted Safdar to clarify that the ex-military dictator was not the only one participating.
“Then prime minister, law minister, parliament and SC judges were also involved in it with him,” he claimed, emphasizing that the special court condemned Musharraf without hearing him. He contended that the nation as a whole was unfairly penalized because of the activities of one individual.
The case of treason
Musharraf was put on trial for treason in 2013 by then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
The septuagenarian former military dictator was sentenced to death under Article 6 of the Pakistani Constitution by a three-judge special court on December 17, 2019, consisting of Justices Waqar Ahmad Seth, Nazar Akbar, and Shahid Karim.
“Anyone who attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or show force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason,” the article reads of those who would do such a thing.
Musharraf was found guilty of high treason for abrogating the Constitution and faced charges related to imposing a state of emergency in 2007. He was condemned in absentia owing to sickness and his absence from the nation.
During the following month of 2019, the LHC assembled a full bench, presided over by Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, to consider a petition lodged by Musharraf. In the appeal, Musharraf questioned both the trial itself and the establishment of the special court that had imposed the death penalty on him concurrently with the plea.
It should be mentioned that the ex-president had also asked the LHC to suspend the special court proceedings while he was out sick until he could make an appearance in court.
The LHC later overturned the president’s death sentence on January 13, 2020, after ruling that the special court’s bench had been formed in a “unconstitutional” manner.
It should be mentioned that the special court’s decision and the LHC’s decision were both challenged before the Supreme Court.
On November 22, 2023, the Supreme Court noted that the former military ruler’s death sentence for high treason was upheld by a special court’s ruling, and it permitted his lawyer to inquire with the family about the possibility of an appeal.
In February 2023, Musharraf departed this world.
