The three-judge Special Court headed by Justice Faisal Arab and comprising Justice Tahira Safdar and Justice Yawar Ali resumed hearing of high treason case against Pervez Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution.
Despite appreciating the impartiality of the federation in constituting the Special Court the defendant made unjustified, unnecessary and immoral allegations against the Prime Minister and former Chief Justice.
During the course of proceedings, Sheikh argued that both PM and CJ played nutria rule throughout the procedure.
Constitutionally bound for the independence of judiciary Federal Government just followed the procedure put down by the superior judiciary in its administrative Rules 1995, Shiekh maintained.
He said there was neither lacuna nor violation in filing the complaint as well as in the constitution of the bench for special court. Special Prosecutor apprised the bench that Rule-16 of Rule of Business clearly disclosed the rights and duties of the PM and the cabinet as well.
While citing the precedent of the Lahore High Court Judgment of 1996, Imran versus Presiding Officer of the Punjab Special Court, which declared the formation of the bench unconstitutional and ultra virus as it was constituted without prior consideration of its chief justice concerned.
Article 175 provides a framework under which superior court could control the subordinate courts, even a transfer of a judge cannot be made without the consent of the chief justice, so the Chief Justice just followed the Rules nothing else.
Similarly he citied another precedent of Saleem Shahzad, a journalist's case, which was also declared unauthorized as the head of the commission was constituted without the consent of the chief justice of high court.
Akram stated that federation had not wicked intention for an individual, it just found documentary evidence against Musharraf and initiated the case but not against anyone else. If Musharraf thought there was abetment of any other person in the proclamation of emergency then he should come to the court and produce the evidence, trial must be initiated against the guilty whatsoever he was.
Federation is following the laws nothing else and laws cannot be amended for a specific person, laws are the same for an affluent and common people Sheikh added. Prosecutor further stated that if we ignore the practice then it would be stepped out of the procedure lay down in the constitution of Pakistan.
If complainant had adopted the method of pick and choose in formation of the Special Court then Prime Minister or federation could have been found guilty, but nothing happened like that throughout the procedure.
Sheikh said Law Ministry wrote a letter to the Registrar Office of the Supreme Court to give the three names of judges of high courts as there were five high courts in the country and federation have to select only three names for the special court.
Despite giving names of the judge' federation asked the apex court about their nominations then how defendant could make allegation against federation that it adopted pick and choice method.
Above that chief justice being nutria in this case sent the letter to the chief justices of the high court to give one name of a judge from their court which gave just the names of senior most judges despite choosing as well.
However keeping in view the impartiality, federation selected senior most judges out of five names given by the high courts. On bench query, Chief prosecutor Akram Shaikh said the government had established clear rules of business in accordance with the constitution, adding that the PM and the cabinet did not carry out the processes of investigation and prosecution personally.
He was seemed very determined while arguing the impartiality of the Prime Minister and Chief Justice as well and completed his arguments.
Later on the request of the Anwar Mansoor, counsel for Musharraf the court adjourned further hearing of the case till January 23 and Mansoor will argue that day.
