Following the verdict of the special court in which former president General (r) Musharraf has been sentenced to death for high treason, criticisms have come from various quarters raising doubts on the fairness of the trial and if Musharraf even had committed treason.
Legal Advisor to the International Commission of Jurists for South Asia Reema Omer has responded to the criticisms arising after Musharraf’s conviction in the high treason case.
https://twitter.com/reema_omer/status/1207097947848105990?s=20
Following are the main points of criticism that the lawyer responded to.
Musharraf tried for emergency, which is not treason
According to the lawyer, Musharraf was charged on many counts, which included subverting the constitution and holding it in abeyance, which were violations of Article 6. This did not only include imposition of the emergency, but also promulgation of the Provisional Constitutional Order (2007), Constitution (Second Amendment) Order 2007, Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2007 and Constitution (Amendment) Order 2007.
Suspending the constitution was not an offence in 2007
The Supreme Court has maintained that holding the constitution in abeyance is tantamount to subverting it, and subversion of the constitution has been part of Article 6 since 1973. The court also observed that the constitution is an organic whole and a living document for all times to come, and even if set aside by an authority, its articles will still apply.
Musharraf cannot be tried without including aiders and abettors accountable
The Supreme Court had maintained in an order that an investigation of the involvement of aiders and abettors is the prerogative of the federal government. However, the court is not required to await the results of such an investigation and postpone the trial until aiders and abettors are included.
Legal Advisor to the International Commission of Jurists for South Asia Reema Omer has responded to the criticisms arising after Musharraf’s conviction in the high treason case.
https://twitter.com/reema_omer/status/1207097947848105990?s=20
Following are the main points of criticism that the lawyer responded to.
Musharraf tried for emergency, which is not treason
According to the lawyer, Musharraf was charged on many counts, which included subverting the constitution and holding it in abeyance, which were violations of Article 6. This did not only include imposition of the emergency, but also promulgation of the Provisional Constitutional Order (2007), Constitution (Second Amendment) Order 2007, Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2007 and Constitution (Amendment) Order 2007.
Suspending the constitution was not an offence in 2007
The Supreme Court has maintained that holding the constitution in abeyance is tantamount to subverting it, and subversion of the constitution has been part of Article 6 since 1973. The court also observed that the constitution is an organic whole and a living document for all times to come, and even if set aside by an authority, its articles will still apply.
Musharraf cannot be tried without including aiders and abettors accountable
The Supreme Court had maintained in an order that an investigation of the involvement of aiders and abettors is the prerogative of the federal government. However, the court is not required to await the results of such an investigation and postpone the trial until aiders and abettors are included.