LHC verdict against Musharraf conviction challenged in SC.

Byline: Nasir Iqbal

ISLAMABAD -- The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Thursday challenging the Jan 13 Lahore High Court (LHC) verdict which declared as unconstitutional the award of capital punishment to former president retired General Pervez Musharraf by a special court. The petition prayed to the apex court to set aside the high court judgement.

The petition was filed on behalf of PBC vice chairman Abid Saqi and supported by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, chairman of the council's executive committee Sher Muhammad Khan, and members Akhtar Hussain, Syed Amjad Shah, Azam Nazeer Tarar and Kamran Murtaza.

The Sindh High Court Bar Association had also challenged the decision with a request to the apex court to restore the Dec 17 conviction of Pervez Musharraf by the special court for subverting the ConstituAtion. That petition, filed by Rasheed Razvi, had argued that the High Court verdict suffered from 'illegality, mis-appreciation of facts and non-appreciation of law'.

The special court had declared the former president guilty of treason under Article 6 of the Constitution for clamping a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007, and liable to be punished with death.

PBC's petition questions whether high court enjoys territorial jurisdiction to entertain ex-president's plea

The petition filed by the Pakistan Bar Council on Thursday questioned whether the Lahore High Court enjoyed territorial jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition filed by Pervez Musharraf against an order passed by the special court - a court beyond the LHC's territorial jurisdiction.

The LHC should have stayed proceedings on the petition as the Islamabad High Court was already seized with a similar one, the PBC argued.

The Bar Council's petition raised a question whether the high court could issue a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a special court that is not under its supervision.

The petition contended that a high court working under Article 199 (1) of the Constitution had no authority to declare a judgement given by...