Musharraf 'persistently, stubbornly' delayed, evaded high treason trial, says detailed verdict.

Byline: Haseeb Bhatti

The detailed verdict in the high treason case against former military ruler retired Gen Pervez Musharraf was released on Thursday, two days after the special court found the former president guilty of treason and handed him a death sentence.

The verdict is split 2-1, with Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court agreeing with Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and Justice Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court dissenting.

Key points:

Verdict split 2-1

Says military personnel who 'guarded, abetted' Musharraf should be held accountable

Only one judge in favour of "exemplary punishment"

Musharraf has 30 days to appeal verdict

"A dictator stays in power only as long as he manages to subvert the will of his people. The usurpation of the functions of government and other organs of State established by the Constitution tantamount to subversion of the Constitution. Exercise of undue influence over judiciary (such as making them cease office and/or take fresh extra-constitutional oath) do tantamount to subversion of the Constitution," says the 169-page detailed judgement, authored by Peshawar High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth.

Para 66 of Justice Waqar Seth's detailed judgement.

Justice Seth, along with Justice Karim, said that the evidence presented had proved that Musharraf committed a crime. Justice Karim concurred with the findings and punishment, with the exception of paragraph 66 which mentions "dragging the body to D-Chowk".

"I dissent with the President [...] it has no basis in law and will be ultra vires for this court to do so. In my opinion it is enough to sentence the accused to death," said Justice Karim.

'Uniformed officers with boots on equally involved'

"It is patent by the act and conduct of the accused facing trial, that he has persistently and stubbornly strived ever since the commencement of this trial, to delay, retract and in fact evade it. It has been his plea throughout that either on account of ill health or for security hazards he could not reach up to this Court to face trial," said the judgement.

"If for a moment it is presumed that military high command including Corps Commanders were not involved then why they failed to defend and protect the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by not restraining a man in uniform [...] the then Corps Commanders Committee in addition to all other uniformed officers who were guarding him each and every time, with boots on...